Blog Comments

  1. Željko Zidarić avatar
    Looking at the Canadian political space for an example, we have two competing politicians with two very different images with contrasting popularity levels.

    On the one hand we have Stephen Harper (Conservatives) who, while performing very well in high school graduating in 1978 at the top of his class with a 95.7% average he later dropped out of University of Toronto after only two months. He later completed a Bachelor's degree in economics and continued to on to earn a Master's degree in economics in 1993 (15 years after graduating from high school) at the University of Calgary. Early in his career, after dropping out of U of T, Harper worked in the mail room at Imperial Oil and later advanced to work on the company's computer systems. Harper entered politics in 1988 and has been a politician ever since. I might speculate that Harper studied for the Masters in Economics as a matter of political requirement rather than intellectual curiosity.

    On the other hand we have Michael Ignatieff (Liberals) who received a B.A. in History in 1969 and then went on to the University of Oxford, and then on to Harvard University where he completed his Ph.D in History in 1976. Early in his career Ignatieff lectured at universities in Europe and North America, and held teaching posts at Oxford, the University of London, the London School of Economics, the University of California and in France. In 2000, Ignatieff accepted a position as the director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. In 2005, Ignatieff left Harvard to become the Chancellor Jackman Professor in Human Rights Policy at the University of Toronto and a senior fellow of the university's Munk Centre for International Studies. He was then publicly mentioned as a possible Liberal candidate for the next federal election.

    Today Harper is far more popular than Ignatieff. Harper has a 29% approval rating while Ignatieff has only 16% on a downward trend.
    Source: Ignatieff’s Approval Continues to Plummet in Canada

    In his blog on, on 23 march 2010, Scott Ross makes the following comments "Why Ignatieff Isn't Popular":

    There might be a reason why Michael Ignatieff has had a difficult time connecting with voters, and that's because perhaps he's nothing like them. It would be in the best interests of the Liberal Leader and his party if he started acting more like an ordinary guy than just another professor.

    The reality for Michael Ignatieff is that he is too intelligent. People don't want the best of the best representing them, because those all too perfect beings are too far away to relate to the average person, to know their concerns and their problems. Ordinary Canadians want a representative that is the best, but only the best among them, not some elitist from some distant intellectual plane. Canadians want a leader that is smart but that shares their values, Ignatieff in continuing to intellectually separate himself from ordinary Canadians also separates himself from their values.
  2. Željko Zidarić avatar
    Written by Frano Budimlic

    Who is Marko Perkovic "Thompson?"

    Marko Perkovic is Croatia's most prominent musician. He and his band go by the stage-name "Thompson." That was the nick-name given to him by his fellow soldiers during Croatia's 1991-1995 war of independence from Serbian-dominated communist Yugoslavia. The village he was born in, "Cavoglave," was on the front-lines of Serbian aggression during that turbulent period. He took part in the successful defense of his nation. The weapon he was issued was the American-made sub-machine gun, hence the nick-name Thompson. Marko Perkovic was quickly catapulted to fame by his patriotic song, "Cavoglave," dedicated to defenders from the village of his birth. The song inspired all Croatian defenders. It inspired Croatian civilians and Croatians all around the world at a very critical moment in the small nation's history. It was on that foundation that he built his career. And "Thompson" soon became a house-hold name.

    What type of music does "Thompson" perform?
    "Thompson" is a hard-rock/heavy-metal band. Many of the band's songs are comprised of ethno-elements, folk poetry and songs that have for centuries accompanied Croatian folk-dances. "Thompson" has also been known to perform and record pop-songs.

    What does Marko Perkovic sing about?
    Marko Perkovic and his band are certainly not one-dimensional. Earlier in his career, Perkovic recorded many love songs to accompany hits that were centered around Croatian social themes. Since his career took off during Croatia's fight for independence, many of his songs were about the liberation of Croatia. Croatia gained official international recognition in 1992. Croatia was officially and legitimately liberated in 1995. Contrary to negative propaganda and outright lies, Thompson’s songs inspired Croatians during the liberation of their homeland. Thompson also recorded songs depicting the plight of Croatian soldiers after the war. Stories about the experiences similar to those of Vietnam Vets in the United States after returning from war. With his more recent albums, Thompson has centered the themes of his songs on the natural scenic beauty of Croatia and three social values that the overwhelming majority of Croatians hold dear: God, family and the homeland. His music has never glorified war-criminals from the past or present. These accusations are simply preposterous.

    God, Family and the Homeland
    Thompson has on numerous occasions challenged anyone opposed to him or his music to prove their false claims and accusations. He has challenged all his critics to listen to his songs, obtain translations of his lyrics, and finally learn the truth about his music. Once again, the main themes of Thompson's songs are about God, family and the homeland. Many critics, purposely or not, misinterpret his music as political activism. Perhaps it because of the message his songs emit. Messages of faith in God, love of family and homeland. A far cry from a nationalist or extremist, Thompson is simply a patriot. Something he willingly admits. These are themes hardly worthy of controversy and the kind of negative publicity surrounding him and his band.

    Thompson does NOT perform anthems that glorify war-criminals, concentration camps or genocide
    The worst of all false accusations flung at Thompson is that he is the author of a song called: "Jasenovac & Gradiska Stara." Contrary to fallacious propaganda and claims, Thompson is not the author of this song. He does not, nor has he ever, performed it live. It cannot be found on any of Thompson's seven albums. We challenge all his critics and accusers to listen to all of his recorded work and learn the truth for themselves. Once again, we challenge all to obtain copies of his official albums; and kindly ask to refrain from viewing or listening to propagandistic montages constructed and posted on the Internet by anonymous Thompson-haters. The song is simply not his.

    Why, then, does so much controversy revolve around Thompson?
    Since the end of World War II, the Croatian nation was systematically stigmatized by the Serbian-dominated communist government of Yugoslavia. For 45 yrs., any hint of Croatian patriotism was extinguished by the state's apparatus, most commonly under the false indictment of “fascist“ or “Nazi“ separatism. To accompany the murder and imprisonment of Croatian patriots within Yugoslavia and around the world, negative propaganda about Croatians was disseminated by Belgrade's information services. This was purposely done with the objective of squashing any activism around the world. Within years, the Croatian nation became synonymous with that of the Nazis. Sadly, in many cases of western literature, the false accusation stuck.

    With his songs, Thompson has for some reason warranted the ire of many anti-Croatian Greater-Serbian nationalists and their well-paid public-relation mouthpieces their lobbies employ. They have still not come to terms that they were on the losing side of a war of aggression that Milosevic’s Serbia committed against Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. They have still not come to terms with the fact that Croatia is an independent country proud of its recent victory on the battle-field against criminal aggression. Croatia's enemies have since conducted a defamation campaign against all Croats, not just Thompson. It is their hope to stifle Croatia’s chance at entry into the European Union. Thompson is very popular among Croatians that are old enough to remember the war years in the early 1990s. And the band quickly became a natural target for Croatia's enemies. The defamation campaign is spear-headed by negative propaganda identical to the kind spread world-wide during communist Yugoslavia. Propaganda that basically equates the entire Croatian nation and its identity to Nazism. It appears that not even a simple musician can escape anti-Croatian bias. This type of propaganda war-fare should not be surprising to American eyes or ears. We ask all interested to try and understand the political/social landscape of once war-torn South Central Europe. Starting from that position, it will be much easier to understand today’s relations between peoples of the former Yugoslavia.

    Thompson performed in Frankfurt, Germany on April 21, 2007
    As you probably know by now, Thompson is very popular in Croatian emigrant communities around the world. He has sold out concerts in Australia, Canada and Germany. Just to name a few countries. Thompson played a packed Ballsporthalle in Frankfurt, Germany on April 21, 2007. We’d like to remind you that the concert was held in the heart of Germany. A nation with the most stringent of anti-bias and anti-hate laws that exist anywhere in the world. When German authorities translated Thompson’s lyrics, something we ask all of you to do, they soon learned what the band is really about. And the show went on as planned. We find it extremely hard to believe that Thompson’s most vocal critics are not aware of this. Once again, we remind you that Thompson performed a successful show in Frankfurt, Germany. The concert and the translation of lyrics made by German authorities were reported by major media-outlets in that country. As correctly and truthfully reported in the newspapers Allgemeine Zeitung and Frankfurter Allgemeine, Thompson’s lyrics neither promote, nor incite, violence.

    There has never been a violent incident at a Thompson concert
    Because of many false accusations and outright lies, we’d like to mention that there has never been an incident at any of Thompson’s many concerts. Whether in Frankfurt, Germany or Zagreb, Croatia-- Thompson‘s concerts, naturally, always conclude peacefully. Just another fact that proves the critics wrong.

    Marko Perkovic is a musician
    Marko Perkovic is a Croatian patriot that loves his country dearly. He is not a member of any political party in Croatia, nor does he have any affiliation to political or activist groups within or outside the country. Marko Perkovic Thompson is just a musician.

    Just as we Americans love our country, Perkovic loves his. Just as Jewish-Americans love their heritage and Israel, Perkovic loves Croatia. And so do Croatian-Americans. So do Croatians world-wide. With his music, Perkovic simply sings of patriotism and love of the Croatian heritage. His songs inspire many Croats to live honest lives, cherish family, honor God and be faithful to the homeland. To Croatians in the United States, this translates into the respect of not only the Croatian heritage, but of respect to our American heritage; into respect for the great nation that in the past granted amnesty to Croatians that sought refuge and freedom from oppression. The incessant attacks against this very successful musician are simply baseless and unwarranted.
  3. Željko Zidarić avatar
    Reprint from -Frano Budimlic - New York

    ThoMPson & the Croatian diaspora
    Utorak, 05 Lipanj 2007

    I wanted to write this text months ago after the release of Marko Perkovic’s new album. Something held me back though. Perhaps it was the premonitions I had; premonitions about the course of Thompson’s success that have, amazingly enough, been realized. And that date back prior to his “E, moj narode” album.

    Marko Perkovic has, as so many other Croats before him, been crucified by the proponents of neo-Yugoslavism that dominate in Croatia. When they’re tearing him apart in the print or electronic media, every sensible person can tell that their true target is the Croatian identity.

    Ah, yes, the Croatian identity. A topic of controversy that has for years entertained the Croats themselves, and most importantly, their enemies. Thanks to years of independent study of Croatia’s history, politics and journalism, I have, sadly, concluded that there is no more hated nation in South-Eastern Europe. Nor does there exist a people to match the Croats in the defense of their perpetually vilified and ravaged national identity. The indefinite postponement of Thompson’s Sarajevo concert is just another example of a silent persecution being committed against Croatians in Bosnia & Herzegovina. Let’s get things straight. Marko Perkovic Thompson is the most prominent and influential Croatian musician today. Aside from, maybe, Miso Kovac, he is the only artist that can fill Poljud or Maksimir to the rafters. Although Miso is undoubtedly the most popular Croatian singer to have ever lived, his time has, sadly, passed. Thompson is enjoying the zenith of his career.

    There is no doubt that Thompson owes much of his success to the atrocious state of Croatian politics and nation; his music always channeling the love, distress and honesty of the Croat masses. While he will always be remembered for mobilizing the hearts and souls of Croatia’s defenders with “Bojna Cavoglave“; from Croatia’s Stalingrad -Vukovar, to the ramparts of Dubrovnik during the Homeland war, Perkovic has intelligently crafted and fortified his artistic habitat in post-war Croatia-- never letting go of the ideals that inspired him to write his hits.

    When I was a boy, I witnessed Thompson’s first performance at the Croatian Center in NYC. It was one block away from Cardinal Stepinac Place on 41st street in Manhattan that I saw and heard him sing “Cavoglave” for the first time. That was back in 1991 or 1992 - during one of the UN-peace-keeper enforced lulls of the Homeland war. It was that night I learned that Perkovic was actually from a small town outside of Drnis. Prior to that, I was under the impression that he hailed from Imotski, being that the first version I heard of “Cavoglave” was actually dedicated to the defenders from Imotski. As it turns out, Thompson recorded two versions of Croatia’s most popular battle cry. One dedicated to his own Cavoglave, and the other to Imotski -- where, by no accident, the same song was first recorded.

    Much has been said and written about Marko Perkovic Thompson since then. Most of it negative. Unfortunately, he is unable to escape criticism from even the most unlikely of figures. As if it weren’t bad enough that the Serbo-phile littered Croatian media holds him to the most absurd of criteria, many Croats frown upon his success. Perhaps that treatment is truly due to the curse of Zvonimir that Thompson so passionately sings about. Note to Perkovic’s haters: Thompson doesn’t believe that such a curse really exists. He uses the myth metaphorically to describe the treason and betrayal so prevalent in Croatia today.

    But it is not necessarily in the homeland that Thompson enjoys his greatest success and admiration. It is in the diaspora.

    In the age of Globalism, Thompson has single-handedly built not one, but many highways connecting the diaspora to Croatia.

    It is with his unique synthesis of ancient Croatian tales -most true, others mythical- of heroics, love, beauty, faith and rock & roll that Thompson has captured the hearts of countless Croatians worldwide. He sings of God, family and the homeland. Sadly, and unbelievably, themes that are considered anachronistic in these chaotic times. Some go as far to render those same themes nationalistic, and even xenophobic. These absurd criticisms are telling of the era we live in.

    Thompson brings hope to the Croatian masses; from Toronto to Melbourne, Vancouver to Munich, he fills the hearts of Croatians who yearn for a better tomorrow, and at the same time, painfully reminisce of years lost. Years filled with poverty, wars, injustice and persecution.

    Thompson comes from a small village like most Croats do. He shares and promotes the values that most Croats hold dear. He is a commoner with a proven talent. Thompson is a reflection of the Croatian émigré communities around the world. He is a simple man with remarkable abilities. That is what binds Perkovic to the diaspora. And it is this for that same reason that Thompson is hated and ridiculed by the remnants of the old Yugoslav regime still alive in politics and the media. If there’s one thing that they hate more than Thompson, it is the Croatian diaspora. And if there’s another thing they hate more than the diaspora, it’s a proud and successful Croat living in his “own little piece of the universe.”

    Marko, hvala!

    -Frano Budimlic
    New York
  4. Željko Zidarić avatar
    Most people are moderates. Even in the US there is very large "Swing Vote" voter segment. It is the Centrist swing voters that determine who wins the American presidential elections. Let us look at the recent Conservative Party win in the British elections.

    David Cameron - a self-declared "liberal conservative" (which in British English means "moderate conservative") led the Conservatives to a "Win" even though it was a minority win. Cameron believes in softening the Conservative stance which can be translated to moving closer to the Center.

    Cameron says the following: I am a Conservative because of the values that I have believed in all my life: family, responsibility and opportunity. I am a Conservative because I believe that those values lead inexorably to a political agenda whose central mission is to give people more power and control over their lives … because we want people to rely on their family, not the state; because you can't take responsibility for something unless you have control over it; and because true opportunity means having the freedom to achieve all you can in life.

    Andrew Steele summarizes the successful strategy: The normal way to undertake this type of play is a two-stage strategy. In the first stage, one wins over the hearts and minds of the party core with lustful praise for critical touchstone policies. Once the base is secured, it is followed by a scamper to the center to win over the swing voters. This is the tactic American politicians use constantly: play to the extremists early and then shift to the center to win the general election. The upset win by Ronald Reagan in 1980 is a great example of starting hard-right and moving to the center.

    Also of interest:
    Tory Magic
    Republican Rescue Plan
    Tory Lessons for Republicans
    Republicans Love David Cameron
    David Cameron’s ‘Obama Army’, ready to change the face of the Conservative Party
  5. Željko Zidarić avatar
    Nacionalizam nije nužno desničarska ideologija

    Gospodine Jonjiću, Vaša posljednja knjiga znakovita naslova: Hrvatski nacionalizam i europske integracije, objavljena je 2008. godine. Za one koji knjigu nisu još pročitali, možete li ukratko reći što je njezin sadržaj?

    U Hrvatskoj a i izvan nje stvorena je slika da je ideologija hrvatskog nacionalizma, onako kako su ju u drugoj polovici XIX. stoljeća formulirali A. Starčević i E. Kvaternik, zapravo ideologija neslobode, neprava, nesnošljivosti i mržnje. Istina je i u historiografskome i u političkom pogledu posve suprotna: Starčević i Kvaternik su zapravo bili nositelji jedne slobodarske misli, a to vrijedi do danas za sve njihove autentične sljedbenike, koje se uglavnom označava pojmom hrvatskih nacionalista. Njihove se političke vizije i njihova djelatnost nisu svodili samo na stvaranje države, nego i na njezino unutarnje uređenje koje će svima jamčiti slobodu, jednakost i pravo, jer država služi čovjeku, a ne obrnuto. No oni su ujedno bili zagovornici suradnje s drugim europskim narodima. Upravo su Starčević i Kvaternik, Kranjčević, Kumičić i Matoš, hrvatski nacionalisti između dva svjetska rata i hrvatski nacionalisti poslije Drugoga svjetskog rata (uključujući i hrvatsku političku emigraciju), bili nositelji i promicatelji europskih vrijednosti: slobode i prava, jednakosti, snošljivosti i suradnje. Međutim, oni su s pravom polazili od toga da je samostalna, neovisna Hrvatska nužna pretpostavka za ozbiljenje tih vrijednosti i za ostvarenje međunarodne suradnje. Nisu zagovarali europsku suradnju bez obzira na Hrvatsku, nego su zagovarali europsku suradnju koja bezuvjetno poštuje identitet, slobodu i neovisnost hrvatskoga i svakog drugog naroda. Kao što ne smije biti ljudi s nejednakim pravima, tako ni smije biti ni naroda niti država koji imaju manje prava od drugih. To je ono što u toj knjizi pokušavam i, nadam se, uspijevam dokazati.

    To znači da pojam «nacionalizam» ne bi smio imati negativan prizvuk?

    O sadržaju i značenju tog pojma napisane su brojne filozofske, politološke i sociološke studije, u koje je ovdje nemoguće ulaziti. No ipak treba reći da se negativne konotacije danas uglavnom pripisuju tzv. ekstremnom nacionalizmu, dok se umjereni nacionalizam smatra većinom prihvatljivim. Unatoč tomu je i taj pojam, bez ikakva valjana razloga, postao odiozan, pa ljudi radije posežu za «patriotizmom», «rodoljubljem», «domoljubljem» i sličnim pojmovima koji jesu bliski, ali nisu istoznačni pojmu «nacionalizam». Također valja reći kako su pokušaji da se nacionalizam poistovjeti sa šovinizmom razmjerno novijega datuma i dolaze dijelom iz komunističkih, a dijelom iz liberalističkih krugova. Oni spadaju u sferu ideološko-političkog obračuna, a ne u područje znanosti, pa ih tako treba i tretirati i s njima se sučeljavati. Pod pojmom «nacionalizam» u spomenutoj knjizi shvaćam umjereni hrvatski nacionalizam koji tradicionalno, i po formi i po sadržaju, spada u obrambene nacionalizme. On je uvijek u funkciji obrane Hrvatske, nikad u funkciji agresije. Pogledajte primjer hrvatsko-mađarskih odnosa. Upravo je mađarski imperijalizam bio jedan od onih koji je bitno oblikovao modernu hrvatsku narodnu i nacionalističku misao, od Preporoda i Jelačića, preko Starčevića i Franka, do Radića i Pilara. No onoga trenutka kad se taj imperijalizam povukao i prestao posezati za Međimurjem ili čak za Jadranom, utrnula je i zadnja protumađarska nota u hrvatskoj javnosti, pa je i u doba Domovinskog rata i danas teško u Europi naći primjer idiličnije suradnje i dobrosusjedstva od susjedskih odnosa Hrvatske i Mađarske. Zaštićen i posve beskonfliktan položaj hrvatske manjine u Mađarskoj i tomu jednak položaj mađarske manjine u Hrvatskoj pokazuju da nije riječ o kakvome površnom i kratkoročnom sporazumu dviju vlada, nego je riječ o procesu koji se vrlo duboko ukorijenio u kolektivnu svijest oba naroda. To je sjajan primjer da je samo na otvorenim i čistim odnosima moguće prijateljstvo i trajna suradnja.

    No ipak se hrvatski nacionalizam često i u hrvatskim u medijima i u javnosti izjednačava sa šovinizmom, proglašava se desničarskim i čak rasističkim?

    I tu se, naravno, radi o pokušaju političke diskreditacije koja, nažalost, često ubire plodove. Krupan dio problema počiva u političkoj i kulturnoj zapuštenosti hrvatske javnosti. Ljudi koji slabo razlikuju, slabo uče. Nacionalizam nije nužno desničarska ideologija, bez obzira na to što se dio neizobraženih nacionalista voli smatrati desničarima. Bojim se da ni nedavno objavljeni prijevod knjige dr. Tomislava Sunića o europskoj Novoj desnici na tome ne će ništa bitno promijeniti, iako bi i površniji čitatelj iz nje mogao naučiti da postoje bitne, u nekim segmentima čak nepremostive razlike između hrvatskog nacionalizma i ideologije Nove desnice. Prema tome, historiografski i politološki je netočno, a politički neispravno miješati hrvatski nacionalizam i ideologiju desnice, što nerijetko čine i neki «nacionalisti», uglavnom nesvjesni da ih se time gura i na društvenu marginu i u nepotrebne prijepore. Jer, s nužnim pojednostavljivanjem, potrebno je kazati kako Hrvati nemaju nikakva razloga predvoditi nekakve svjetske ideološke sukobe. Mi, dakako, moramo biti svjesni da oni utječu i na našu sudbinu, baš kao što su na našu sudbinu utjecali, recimo, prodor islama, reformacija i protureformacija, ideje Francuske građanske revolucije, ideologije liberalizma i komunizma itd., pa tako na naš položaj utječu suvremeni «sukobi civilizacija». O tome nema spora. Međutim, to su teme kojima se u demokratskom društvu bave pojedinci i skupine, ali nisu teme kojima se smiju podređivati interesi čitava naroda. Zato treba neprihvatljivim smatrati pokušaje kojekakvih provokatora, neznalica i lažnih proroka, da dijelove mladeži upregnu u «sekte» koje misle da crna odora i nacionalsocijalističke koračnice poput Horst-Wessel-Lied spadaju u hrvatsku nacionalnu borbu. Ništa mi kao narod ne dugujemo tim simbolima i tim koračnicama: oni su i za nas značili obespravljenje i nasilje! Drugim riječima, ti simboli su negacija, a ne afirmacija hrvatske misli.

    Mislite da treba zabraniti pojave «crnokošuljaštva»?

    Ne. Ja sam protiv bilo kakvih zabrana, jer nas povijest uči da zabrane nikad nigdje nisu riješile nikakvo društveno pitanje, a još manje će to moći u naše, internetsko doba. Međutim, oni koji misle da crnim košuljama i svastikama izražavaju svoje hrvatstvo, treba podučiti da nije tako: oni možda jesu na desnici (što je i njihov problem i problem desnice!), ali nisu hrvatski nacionalisti. Crne odore i crne zastave su, uostalom, izvorno ikonografski element anarhizma, a u hrvatskim su ih zemljama, ako baš hoćete, nosili talijanski fašisti i srpski četnici. Iza njih su ostajali samo hrvatski leševi i spaljena hrvatska sela i gradovi. Isto vrijedi i za povremene, srećom rijetke, antijudaističke ispade u Hrvatskoj. Zar su Židovi tvorci jugoslavenske ideologije, zar su nam oni nametnuli jugoslavenske okove 1918. i 1945. godine? Zar su oni tvorci Glavnjača i Lepoglava, Gradiški i Gologa? Ovih je dana s mojim razmjerno opširnim predgovorom, iz tiska izišla zbirka dokumenata «Nekoji nazori i zapovijedi sv. otaca papa glede nepravednog proganjanja izraelićana». Predgovor i dokumenti u toj zaboravljenoj i prešućenoj zbirci koja je izvorno objavljena u Zagrebu 1900. godine, pokazuju da se autentični nauk Katoličke crkve i ideologija hrvatskoga nacionalizma podudaraju u zagovaranju prava, slobode i jednakosti građana, bez obzira na njihovo davno narodnosno podrijetlo, vjersku pripadnost i sl. Istodobno je karakteristično da se u to doba, na prijelazu XIX. i XX. stoljeća, vulgarnim antijudaističkim ispadima u Hrvatskoj ističu upravo ideolozi i apologeti jugoslavenstva. Oni su tvorci jednoga rasnoga i rasističkog koncepta. No oni danas u Zagrebu i u Hrvatskoj imaju trgove i naselja, po njima su nazvane ustanove i ulice, dok su hrvatski nacionalisti prešućeni i zaboravljeni kao zasukani «natražnjaci». Koji je, dakle, ključni kriterij vrednovanja ondašnjih hrvatskih političara: njihov antijudaizam (antisemitizam) ili ipak njihova odanost jugoslavenskoj misli?

    Bivši se premijer dr. Ivo Sanader prilikom posjeta sveučilištu u Oxfordu 2007. pohvalio kako je nacionalizam u Hrvatskoj – za razliku od ostalih zemalja Jugoistočne Europe – sveden na «bezopasnu mjeru». Kako to komentirate?

    Kad o hrvatskome nacionalizmu tako sude današnji glasnogovornici tzv. europske orijentacije, onda to nije previše opasno. Ti su ljudi velikom većinom, naime, bili ideolozi ili apologeti jugoslavenskoga komunističkog režima i kao takvi Hrvatsku, njezine probleme i njezina prava, uopće nisu primjećivali ili su ju, u najboljem slučaju, orijentirali prema prema «Moskoviji» kao tobožnjemu našem «stalnom svjetioniku» (M. Krleža), ili prema «nesvrstanima», dakle, afroazijskom istoku kojemu Hrvatska ni geopolitički ni kulturno ni interesno nikad nije pripadala. Ali kad takvu ocjenu izrekne predsjednik hrvatske vlade i ujedno predsjednik najveće političke stranke u Hrvata, koja je u svoje vrijeme poslužila kao jedan od ključnih instrumenata hrvatskog oslobođenja, i kad je taj predsjednik navodno demokršćanin i, k tome, još hoće biti doktor znanosti, onda je to opasno. Onda je to davanje oružja protivniku i delegitimiranje hrvatske borbe tijekom posljednjih 150 godina. Osim toga, nije nevažna ni simbolička težina te Sanaderove Canosse (koja, nažalost, nije bila jedina). Kao što Hrvatsko proljeće nije bilo slučajno sasječeno baš u Karađorđevu i baš 1. prosinca 1971., na dan stvaranja prve jugoslavenske države, tako ni do Sanaderove izjava nije došlo bilo gdje. Jer, Oxford nije samo ugledno sveučilište, nego i jedan od simbola britanske nadmoći. Tamo se, eto, trebalo poniziti i posuti pepelom. Na sramotu vlastitog naroda...

    Ulazak Hrvatske u Europsku uniju postavljen je kao vrhovni cilj hrvatske politike komu se imaju podrediti svi ostali ciljevi. Kako gledate na proces ulaska Hrvatske u EU? Ne mislite li da se upravo na primjeru ulaska Hrvatske u EU ogleda ono što je nadbiskup Bozanić nazvao "podaničkim mentalitetom"?

    Politička strategija koja se sažima u aforizam «Hrvatska je spremna podnijeti svaku žrtvu za pristup EU» i koja tvrdi kako «nema alternative» toj politici, samim time pokazuje svoju kratkovidnost i svoju pogubnost. Nikad u povijesti nije bilo situacije u kojoj nema alternative, pa zašto bi je bilo danas? Primjeri Švicarske i Norveške, kao i aktualna gospodarska kriza koja reaktualizira ono što nazivamo «gospodarskim nacionalizmom», svjedoče upravo suprotno. Zašto zatvarati oči pred tim pojavama? Ne postoje, po mom sudu, nikakvi ideološki razlozi za neopozivo određivanje prema problemu pristupa EU. To jest i mora biti stvar matematike, računa. Ako se izračuna da je Hrvatskoj takav korak isplativ, tj. da ona u njemu ne će izgubiti nacionalni identitet, jezik i kulturu, bitna obilježja državnosti, i da će istodobno gospodarski i kulturno profitirati, onda se treba zalagati za pristup EU kao zajednici slobodnih naroda i država. U protivnome, treba biti protiv toga. Tu je ključ problema. Kod nas je nevolja u tome što se taj račun, to suočavanje s činjenicama izbjegava. To izbjegavanje je izraz spomenutoga «podaničkoga mentaliteta». No čak i ako se izračuna da nam se pristup EU ne isplati, treba težiti usvajanju vrijednosti koje danas nazivamo europskima. Dakle, treba se zalagati za izgradnju Hrvatske kao demokratske, pravne i socijalne države, države koja će svojim građanima biti privlačna ne samo po nacionalnome znamenju, nego po načinu na koji u njoj mogu ostvariti vlastitu budućnost. To podrazumijeva kulturni i tehnološki napredak. Drugim riječima, mi se trebamo voditi vlastitim interesima, a ne time što o nama misli, recimo, britanska, a što vatikanska diplomacija. Mi smo iskusili i Londonske ugovore i Beogradske protokole, pa je vrijeme da naučimo kako hrvatsku nacionalnu politiku ne smije voditi nitko izvan Hrvatske: ni Bruxelles, ni London, ni Berlin, pa ni Vatikan. Kao što nekad (1918.) nije imao «misiju» žrtvovati vlastiti identitet i državnost radi privođenja pravoslavnih Srba i Crnogoraca kršćanskom Zapadu, tako hrvatski narod ni danas nema nikakvu misiju žrtvovati se radi rekristijanizacije Europe. Mi, hrvatski katolici, imamo zadaću čuvati i izgrađivati svoje katolištvo, ali nemamo zadaću žrtvovati svoj identitet i svoju državu da bi se postotak katolika u nekakvoj europskoj integraciji povećao. Drugim riječima, treba razlikovati vrhunaravno poslanje Crkve od ovozemaljskih, taktičkih interesa vatikanske diplomacije: prvo nas obvezuje, prema drugome nikakvih obveza nemamo.

    Iako se hrvatski političari kite europskim zastavama i narodu propovijedaju priče o ulasku Hrvatske u EU, dojma sam da regionalno-balkanske integracije mnogo bolje napreduju od onih europskih. Pojmovi kao što "regija", "Zapadni Balkan" ili pak "Jugosfera", od 2000. su godine sastavnim dijelom medijsko-političkog diskursa. Krije li se iza tih pojmova možda opasnost od nekih novih panbalkanskih državnih koncepcija?

    To, nažalost, nije ništa novo. Važni akteri raspada Jugoslavije 1990./91. potvrđuju kako im se sa Zapada već tada najavljivalo da će opet biti nametnuta slična integracija. Iz vlastitog iskustva znam da je švicarsko ministarstvo vanjskih poslova već u prvoj polovici devedesetih imalo «desk» za područje bivše SFRJ minus Slovenija plus Albanija. (Usput, jedno vrijeme je taj «desk» vodio diplomat Jean Jacques Joris koji je nekoliko godina kasnije u Haagu bio «politički savjetnik» glavne tužiteljice Carle Del Ponte!) Taj projekt, dakle, postoji odavno, a samo se njegovi oblici mijenjaju i prilagođavaju. Ipak, ne treba, po mom sudu, iz tih planova iščitavati nikakve urote niti kakvu mržnju prema Hrvatima. Radi se o geopolitičkim razlozima i interesima. A kao što su geopolitički argumenti konstanta, tako će težnja za utemeljenjem nekakve balkanske integracije biti konstanta. Oni koji tvrde drugačije, ili su naivni i previđaju činjenice, ili svjesno služe tvorcima tih planova. No na te planove ne treba reagirati agresivno, izljevima strasti, ksenofobijom i mržnjom. Najbolji protuotrov jest izgradnja Hrvatske kao samostalne i suverene, demokratske i pravne države, države rada i blagostanja. Učinimo suverenu hrvatsku državu privlačnom. Ugledajmo se u Švicarsku: ni u doba najpoletnijeg zanosa susjednih naroda, kad je Napoleon osvajao Europu, kad su se ujedinjavale Italija i Njemačka, ili kad su Mussolini i Hitler zarobili duše Talijana i Nijemaca diljem svijeta, švicarski Francuzi, Talijani ili Nijemci nisu svoju malu i slobodarsku Švicarsku pretpostavili istojezičnim carstvima koja su nastajala u njihovu susjedstvu. Nisu, jer im je Švicarska uvijek nudila više slobode, prava i blagostanja. I nije slučajno da su ta carstva propadala, a da je Švicarska opstala! Švicarci ni danas ne žele u EU. Zar netko misli da će EU nadživjeti alpsku konfederaciju? Sumnjam da bi oni koji možda tako misle dobro stajali na političkim kladionicama...

    Jedan ste od rijetkih hrvatskih intelektualaca koji u svojim radovima promišljaju o položaja Hrvata u BiH, kao i o vezama s hrvatskom dijasporom. O ovoj problematici u Hrvatskoj se često raspravlja na način neprimjeren jednom uljuđenom i kulturnom društvu; mediji nastoje stvoriti dojam da su Hrvati iz BiH kao i Hrvati iz dijaspore hrvatski teret. Komu je u interesu stvaranje takvih netočnih predodžbi i potenciranje podjela u hrvatskom nacionalnom biću? I kakva je iz Vašeg stanovišta budućnost Hrvata u BiH?

    Ne uspijevam dokučiti zašto bismo za subinu BiH trebali biti manje zainteresirani nego, recimo, za sudbinu Istre ili Međimurja, ni zašto bi Hrvat iz BiH bio manje ili više vrijedan od Hrvata iz Baranje, Zagreba ili iz Dubrovnika. Vraćajući se u ne tako davnu povijest, ne znam ni zašto bi gubitak nekoga drugog dijela nacionalnog teritorija morao biti bolniji od gubitka BiH. Mi oduvijek BiH smatramo i hrvatskom zemljom, i u tome, očevidno, nismo u krivu. Povrh toga je već stoljeće i pol sudbina BiH u samoj srži onoga što nazivamo hrvatskim pitanjem. Prema tome, nemamo nikakva moralnog prava kazati da smo doživjeli oslobođenje i da smo to pitanje riješili, ako je sudbina naših sunarodnjaka u BiH neizvjesna, a ona objektivno takva jest. Za takvo shvaćanje postoje, doduše, i iracionalni razlozi, ali za to ima i vrlo racionalnih, objektivnih argumenata. Danas se je hrvatska misao tamo svela na katolike, za što smo dijelom i sami odgovorni, a dijelom su tomu krive objektivne prilike i utjecaj drugih čimbenika. Ta nevesela činjenica ima još neveselije posljedice: naši su sunarodnjaci najmanji od tri konstitutivna naroda, a očito je da svaki od tih naroda ima vlastite interese. Je li moguće bez stranog pritiska pronaći zajednički nazivnik koji bi značio osiguranje prava i prosperititeta svim konstitutivnim narodima i istodobno očuvanje BiH kao samostalne države? Priznajem da ja rješenje ne vidim, ali o putu prema njemu moramo razmišljati. Odluku trebaju pregovorima donijeti demokratski izabrani predstavnici sva tri naroda. Tko sam ja da bih dijelio lekcije ili bio nekakav skrbnik hrvatske politike u BiH? No u svakom slučaju nikad nisam imao, pa ni danas nemam simpatija prema stanovitim pokušajima s hrvatske strane, da se stvore psihološke i političke pretpostavke hrvatsko-srpske suradnje koja bi možda vodila prema slabljenju kohezivnih čimbenika, ali bi sasvim sigurno dovela do produbljenja sporova između Hrvata i Bošnjaka-Muslimana. Vidim kako bi iz toga profitirali Srbi, ali ne vidim kako bi se okoristili Hrvati. Za takvu moju nesklonost, čini mi se, ne treba znati više od dvije-tri činjenice iz povijesti srpske politike u BiH. Također je dovoljno otvorenih očiju promatrati kako se Dodik i Beograd ponašaju u kontekstu strateških poteza Moskve i Londona.

    Kao branitelj ste sudjelovali u postupcima pred MKSJ u Den Haagu, a napisali ste i nekoliko studija o tome sudištu. Procesi protiv hrvatskih generala – onih iz BiH kao i onih iz RH – ulaze u svoju posljednju fazu. Presude koje će ubrzo uslijediti neminovno će u bitnome utjecati i na budućnost hrvatske države i hrvatskoga naroda. Nije li sramotno da se o suđenjima generalima u hrvatskim medijima piše gotovo ništa (a kad se piše, uglavnom se piše negativno), dok se recimo u Srbiji gotovo sva suđenja mogu pratiti televizijskim putem?

    Zapravo među optuženicima iz tzv. hercegovačke šestorke ima civila, dakle, političara a ne vojnika. No to ništa ne mijenja na stvari: i u jednome i u drugom slučaju bi možebitne nepovoljne odluke duboko utjecale na budućnost hrvatskog naroda i države. Ne dijelim, doduše, mišljenje onih koji smatraju da bi se time i u pravnom smislu reaktualizirao zlokobni «plan Z4», jer države ipak nastaju i nestaju na drugi način. Iako znamo da pravne posljedice proizvodi samo dispozitiv sudske odluke, pa se u tom smislu sudi pojedincima, ni obrazloženje moguće osude, makar ono ne proizvodi neposredne pravne učinke, ipak bi moglo imati krajnje negativne psihološke i političke posljedice za čitave kolektivitete, narode. Ono bi moglo predstavljati težak udarac našemu nacionalnom ponosu, samosvijesti i samopouzdanju, a istodobno bi na neki način legitimiralo i potaknulo dezintegracijske čimbenike. Nema sumnje da to ipak ne bi imalo razmjere kakvi su se mogli pratiti na primjeru Njemačke (gdje je konstituiranje austrijske nacije olakšano time što je nakon Hitlera bilo vrlo nepopularno biti Nijemac), ili na primjeru Srbije, u kojoj je upravo Miloševićev brutalni imperijalizam potaknuo emancipaciju Crnogoraca i u konačnici doveo do osamostaljenja Kosova. Ipak, posljedice bi mogle biti ozbiljne. To pogotovo vrijedi za suđenje hercegovačkoj šestorci. Hrvatima tamo predstoje pregovori o njihovu položaju i sudbini države. U tim je pregovorima moralni kapital neprocjenjivo važan, a nije ista etička pozicija onoga tko je proglašen agresorom i razbojnikom, i onoga tko uživa status žrtve. Zato je doista skandalozno da naši mediji ta suđenja uopće ne prate, pa javnost znade za opće teze optužbe, ali ne zna za iznimno snažne argumente obrana. U protivnome bismo shvatili da je ratna situacija bila vrlo složena i da je malo onih koji imaju pravo dijeliti bilo kakve moralne i političke lekcije. Istodobno bismo se psihološki pripremili na odluke koje će uslijediti razmjerno brzo.

    Kakav je prema Vašem mišljenju bio odnos Republike Hrvatske prema Haaškome sudu od vremena njegova osnutka pa do danas; nisu li hrvatske vlasti u tom pogledu učinile veliki broj neoprostivih pogrješaka?

    U nas se ocjena da je MKSJ «politički sud» smatra ne samo neprijepornom, nego i izrazom hrabrosti i dokazom domoljublja. U stvarnosti se radi o pukom ponavljanju općih mjesta iz dokumenata o utemeljenju suda. Pri samome utemeljenju otvoreno je kazano i u rezolucijama Vijeća sigurnosti UN zapisano kako on ima i političku funkciju. Smiješno je, dakle, junačiti se ocjenama koje uopće nisu sporne. Sporno je samo to, jesu li kaznenopravni instrumenti kojima MKSJ tu svoju političku funkciju obavlja u stručnome smislu obranjivi ili nisu. U objavljenim raspravama koje ste spomenuli, napose u raspravi «Hrvatska pred sudom», koja je jesenas objavljena u Matičinoj «Hrvatskoj reviji», o tome sam dovoljno pisao, pa je nepotrebno ovdje ponavljati: hrpa je snažnih argumenata za osporavanje kako legitimiteta, tako i djelovanja MKSJ-a. No, za hrvatsku je javnost karakteristično da se do danas s tim problemom hoće suočiti na krivi način: potezanjem političkih fraza i isticanjem emocionalnih elemenata. To je prije svega neozbiljno. Uopće ne pretjerujem kad tvrdim da se i površnim čitanjem može ustanoviti kako više od pet šestina objavljenih članaka i tobožnjih studija o MKSJ-u pokazuje da njihovi autori nisu pročitali ne samo bilo koju presudu ili Statut MKSJ-a odnosno Pravila o postupku i dokazima, nego da čak ne vladaju elementarnom kaznenopravnom terminologijom. Zato im apologeti MKSJ imaju razloga biti zahvalni: tako niska razina kritike dopušta im da odmahnu rukom i nastave po starome!

    Takav, površan pristup nije posve novijeg datuma?

    Ne. Njega možemo pratiti od samog početka, od prve polovice devedesetih godina. Hrvatske vlasti trajno pokazuju površnost i neshvaćanje problema. Ljudi uglavnom ne znaju ili ne vjeruju podatku da je Hrvatska, kao i čitava svjetska javnost, imala mogućnost utjecati na Statut MKSJ-a, mogla je uputiti primjedbe glavnom tajniku UN-a. To su učinile mnoge zemlje, među njima i Švicarska koja uopće nije bila članicom UN. Učinile su to i brojne strukovne organizacije, ali naša vlada i naši stručnjaci – nisu. Hrvatska nije imala nikakve primjedbe ni na odredbe o stvarnoj nadležnosti, ni o prostornome ni o vremenskom važenju Statuta MKSJ-a, nije imala nikakve primjedbe na način izbora sudaca, na postupak donošenja Pravilnika o postupku i dokazima itd. Nikakvu primjedbu nismo imali, i povrh toga smo 1996. donijeli servilni Ustavni zakon o suradnji, pa se danas tužimo što se «sudi generalima pobjedničke vojske». Ne može se optužnici parirati inače nespornom tezom o pobjedi u ratu! A da se takve optužnice mogu lako dogoditi, mogao je 1993./94. vidjeti svaki osrednji student druge godine prava, ali – Hrvatska nije vidjela. Da je Ustavni zakon o suradnji pretvorio hrvatsku vladu i hrvatske sudove u puke listonoše, također se moglo lako vidjeti. No, protiv njega su glasovali samo pravaši, dok su najgrlatiji zagovornici njegova donošenja bili mnogi od kasnijih njegovih ljutih kritičara. Primjerice, pokojni je general Bobetko isticao kako je politički mudro glasovati za takav zakonski tekst (i pritom korio pravaše zbog tobožnjega političkog avanturizma), očito ne pomišljajući na to da će ga nekoliko godina kasnije samo smrt poštedjeti «identificiranja, lociranja, uhićenja i transferiranja» upravo po tome zakonu... Nije Hrvatska uspjela naučiti ni to, da primjenom pravnih argumenata, kao u slučaju sub poene ministru Šušku, može postići i znatne uspjehe. Naravno, trećejanuarska koalicija je i taj uspjeh anulirala, neselektivno predajući Tužiteljstvu MKSJ-a arhivsko gradivo. Istodobno je uvid u to isto gradivo nekim obranama omogućavan vrlo selektivno, po jasnim političkim kriterijima.

    Autor ste vrlo opsežnog djela Hrvatska vanjska politika 1939.-1942. (945 str.), koautor knjige Hrvatska povijest, surađujete i u Časopisu za suvremenu povijest i u drugim stručnim časopisima. Je li danas u Hrvatskoj moguće objektivno bavljenje poviješću Drugoga svjetskog rata? Odnosno: imaju li u raspravama i radovima prednost argumenti i činjenice ili su političke (dis)kvalifikacije i ideologija i dalje ti koji određuju sadržaj povijesnih radova? Nemoguće je ne primjetiti da su čuvari "povijesne istine" u Hrvatskoj i dalje uglavnom osobe koje su intelektualno formirane u razdoblju komunističkog jednoumlja i koje su dobrim dijelom legitimirale nekadašnji jugoslavensko-komunistički sustav?

    O tome bi pouzdaniji sud mogli dati profesionalni povjesničari. Meni se čini da situaciju u stručnim časopisima ne treba poistovjećivati s dojmom koji s razlogom vlada u javnosti. Skupina političara i tzv. javnih intelektualaca u medijima je nametnula svojevrsnu ofenzivu protiv tobožnjega povijesnog revizionizma. (Šteta je da pritom nisu jasno kazali protive li se samo reviziji predodžaba koje imamo o događajima iz Drugoga svjetskog rata, ili isti kriterij primjenjuju i na Napoleona, Karla Velikog, Julija Cezara ili čak Hamurabija. Ili se možda čak zalažu za zabranu historiografije i spaljivanje povijesnih vrela, jer bi se samo na taj način osigurala zabrana revizije!). A što je uopće znanost, ako nije revizija ranijih spoznaja, krivih predodžaba i zabluda?! Ne podcjenjujem utjecaj koji to medijsko intelektualno nasilje ima na istraživanje, a vjerojatno još više na izbor i sazrijevanje mladih znanstvenika, ali ipak mislim da se u stručnim časopisima vrlo često objavljuju znanstveni i stručni tekstovi koji se bave i novijom poviješću, a koji mogu izdržati ozbiljnu znanstvenu kritiku. Naravno, i tu se ponavlja klasična hrvatska priča: znanstvene rasprave ne čita nitko, pogotovo ne oni koji u medijima raspravljaju o njima i temama kojima se one bave. Povijest je, uz nogomet, jedino područje ljudske djelatnosti o kojemu svi znaju sve.

    Među hrvatskim nacionalistima lustracija je vrlo čest predmet rasprave. Većina ih se slaže da je lustracija, tj. dekomunizacija nužan preduvjet za ozdravljenje hrvatskog društva. Međutim, u Hrvatskoj je umjesto lustracije nekadašnjih komunističkih i udbaških kadrova došlo do "obrnute lustracije" - lustracije državotvornih i nacionalno mislećih kadrova iz medija i ostalih institucija moći. Kako komentirate tu – za hrvatsku demokraciju svakako poraznu činjenicu, i koje je Vaše mišljenje o ovom problemu?

    Ne bih rekao da je lustracija problem kojim se bave posebno hrvatski nacionalisti. To je pitanje demokratskog opredjeljenja pojedinaca i društva, štoviše, pitanje elementarnog morala. Nemoralno je da isto društveno priznanje dobije zločinac i žrtva. Poruka koja se time šalje glasi: isplati se biti zločincem, isplati se pristajati uz jedan zločinački, protunarodni i tiranski režim, isplati se sudjelovati u njegovim zločinima; istodobno se ne isplati suprotstavljati se tom režimu, njegovoj ideologiji i njegovim zločinima. Zato je jugoslavenske i komunističke ideologe i batinaše trebalo prokazati kao takve i samim time im ograničiti sudjelovanje u društvenom životu. U protivnom se teži selekciji nagore. U Hrvatskoj se upravo to dogodilo: politička vlast, gospodarska moć i medijski utjecaj pretežno su u rukama dojučerašnjih jugoslavenskih i komunističkih kadrova. Očekivano, oni su se pokazali lojalnijim slugama novih gospodara. Zahvaljujući tomu, uspjeli su se i u moralnom smislu rehabilitirati, pa čak i steći položaj arbitara demokracije, slobode i europskoga duha. Nijedna država s komunističkom baštinom nije ovaj problem riješila u cijelosti i na zadovoljavajući način, ali mi se čini da je Hrvatska i ovdje na repu. Gdje je još moguće da otkrivanje nečije suradnje s komunističkom obavještajnom službom predstavlja ne udarac, nego vjetar u jedra izbornoj kampanji, kao što se to zbilo na primjeru Stipe Mesića 2000. godine? Razumije se da su za takvo stanje suodgovorni i oni tobožnji «antikomunisti» koji su selektivnom upotrebom, manipuliranjem ostatcima arhivskoga gradiva, pa i povremenim krivotvorenjem, vjerojatno planski stvorili klimu u kojoj je ta dokumentacija izgubila vrijednost koju je mogla i trebala imati. Ali, ni to njezino obezvrjeđenje očito ne bi bilo moguće bez izričitoga ili bar prešutnog blagoslova vrlo visoko pozicioniranih krugova. Zato je pravo pitanje: u kojoj su to hrvatskoj vladi, od 1990. do danas, i brojem i utjecajem bili nadmoćni pojedinci koji nemaju jugoslavensku i komunističku prošlost? A ako je jugoslavenska i komunistička prošlost bila najbolja preporuka za preuzimanje važnih pozicija, zar je ikad bilo realno od tih ljudi očekivati da prepile granu na kojoj sjede?

    Tomislav Jonjić

    Tomislav Jonjić ( je rođen je 1965. u Imotskom. Od 1988. radi kao odvjetnički vježbenik odnosno odvjetnik. Sudionik Domovinskog rata 1991./92. Tri godine kao ugovorni diplomat radio u veleposlanstvu Republike Hrvatske u Bernu (Švicarska), potom nepune dvije godine bio savjetnik za međunarodne odnose u kabinetu ministra unutarnjih poslova. Od rujna 1997. ponovno odvjetnik sa sjedištem ureda u Zagrebu. Kao branitelj sudjelovao i u kaznenim postupcima u inozemstvu (MKSJ u Den Haagu, Sud Bosne i Hercegovine u Sarajevu). Počeo objavljivati 1990. i od tada objavio više od sedam stotina znanstvenih, publicističkih i novinskih tekstova. Sudjelovao na više simpozija i stručnih skupova u zemlji i inozemstvu. Član uredništva više časopisa. Od siječnja 1997. do prosinca 2005., te od rujna 2006. do danas glavni urednik Političkog zatvorenika, mjesečnika Hrvatskog društva političkih zatvorenika ( Član-radnik MH i član HKV.

    Davor Dijanović

    Utorak, 23. ožujka 2010
  6. Željko Zidarić avatar
    Josip Pečarić: Strossmayer nije ideolog jugoslavenstva



    Za razliku od hrvatskih Jugoslavena, koji se bore za jugoslavenstvo u kome je jasna vladajuća srpska pozicija, Strossmayer je bio svjestan da takvo jugoslavenstvo donosi samo zlo. On je dobro poznavao srpski narod i njegovu mržnju prema katoličanstvu i Hrvatima, što nam zorno pokazuju njegova pisma Račkom. Tako 10. travnja 1884. piše: "Narod nam je u vrlo opasnom položaju. Srbi su nam krvavi neprijatelji ... Dočim se mi ljuto borimo prot Mađara, Srbin brat iza leđa na nas navaljuje"

    Piše: Josip PEČARIĆ

    Gojko Borić je u Slobodnoj Dalmaciji od 27. siječnja 2001. dao izvrsnu analizu puzajućeg jugoslavenstva koji današnja vlast provodi u Hrvatskoj. Borić kaže: "Ideološki ’Jugoslaveni’ kao Predrag Matvejević, Slobodan Šnajder i Ivo Banac nastavljaju posao koji su započeli Ljudevit Gaj, Josip Juraj Strossmayer, Viktor Novak, Ivo Andrić, Stipe Šuvar i Goran Babić (da navedemo samo neke ’korifeje’ jugoslavenstva u 19. i 20. stoljeću). (…) Ponovno su cijenjeni radovi Dubravke Ugrešić i Lordana Zafranovića koji Hrvatsku ne mogu ni smisliti." Naravno, Borić ne zaboravlja spomenuti i "prvog putnika u Beograd poslije Domovinskog rata" Igora Mandića.

    Čini se ipak da činimo nepravdu i prema Gaju i prema Strossmayeru stavljajući ih u isti koš s onima koji su bili svjedoci (ili su pomagali) zatiranju hrvatskog naroda u zajedničkoj državi sa Srbima. Svima njima pojam jugoslavenstvo upravo znači to, dok Gaj i Strossmayer nisu mogli na tako nešto ni pomisliti.

    Posebna je uloga Josipa Jurja Strossmayera u svemu tome. Upravo će njegovo "jugoslavenstvo" biti jedna vrsta opravdanja svim hrvatskim Jugoslavenima, koji vole reći kako je on "mecena jugoslavenstva". To su povjerovali i mnogi državotvorni Hrvati, pa i oni Strossmayera izjednačavaju s hrvatskim Jugoslavenima koji zatiru hrvatski narod kroz cijelo dvadeseto stoljeće. U stvari tako državotvorni Hrvati daju alibi hrvatskim Jugoslavenima u njihovu zatiranju svega hrvatskog kroz čitavo dvadeseto stoljeće, pa i danas kada nam se neposredno poslije velikogsrpskog genocida nad hrvatskim narodom i krvavo izborene slobode, opet nudi (za početak) carinska unija.

    A da Strossmayer nije nipošto nikakav korifej Jugoslavenstva pokazale su knjige: "Hrvatski domoljub Josip Juraj Strossmayer", Zagreb, 1995. i "Zbornik radova o Josipu Jurju Strossmayeru", Zagreb, 1997., kao i Korespondencija Josip Juraj Strossmayer – Serafin Vannutelli 1881 – 1887, Zagreb 1999. O Strossmayerovoj političkoj ideologiji Blaž Jurišić, Strossmayer iza kulisa, Hrvatska revija, II, 3, Zagreb 1929, str. 145-159, kaže: "Osnovna linija njegove politike uvijek je ista i jednostavna. On hoće da Hrvatskoj osigura samostalnost u federaciji bilo austrijskoj, bilo ugarskoj, bilo jugoslavenskoj. Ni jedna od ovih alternativa nije se ispunila, i Strossmayerov politički san ostao je neostvaren."

    U stvari, stvarna Strossmayerova želja je bila oslobađanje hrvatskog naroda, što se vidi iz njegova pisma Račkom (9. prosinac 1882.): "Rado bih doživio oslobođenje svoga naroda, ali nemam nade", a kao pragmatičar svjestan pozicije u kojoj se njegov narod tada nalazio, mogućnost za to je vidio jedino kroz ostvarenje jedne od tih alternativa. Pri tome je najvjerojatnije njegovo jugoslavenstvo bio oblik pritiska na austrougarsku vlast upravo da bi ostvario hrvatsku samostalnost.

    Možda ideja princa Ferdinanda o davanju Slavenima ravnopravnog statusa u Monarhiji, zbog čega je i bio ubijen, leži i u Strossmayerovu djelovanju. Jer ugled Strossmayera je bio doista veliki. Recimo, talijanski državnik Marko Minghetti, koji je imao prilike upoznati najistaknutije ličnosti svoga vremena rekao je: "Postoje samo dvojica pred kojima sam imao dojam da pripadaju nekoj drugoj vrsti nego mi ostali." Ta dvojica su Bismarck i Strossmayer.

    Matija Pavić i Milko Cpelić (Josip Juraj Strossmayer, Biskup bosansko-đakovački i sriemski god. 1850-1900. Zagreb, 1904.) ističu da je najvažnije obilježje biskupovog državno-političkog djelovanja nastojanje da se Hrvatskoj osigura slobodan i samostalan razvitak. To je konkretno značilo (str. 428) ujedinjenje hrvatskih zemalja u jednu Hrvatsku, te državnu samostalnost Hrvatske u okviru Habsburške Monarhije, te preuređenje Monarhije u "federaciju" u kojoj bi Hrvati okupili oko sebe druge južne Slavene u Austriji i Bosni. Oni ističu: "On nikada nije promijenio toga svoga načela."

    Ali dopustimo da je biskup, kako kaže Jurišić, mogao misliti i širu jugoslavensku zajednicu, tj. da je to nešto više od pritiska. Razmotrimo takvu Strossmayerovu jugoslavensku ideju. Ona ima tri bitne komponente:- Zagreb je centar južnoslavenskog okupljanja;- Približavanje pravoslavnih južnoslavenskih naroda Rimu i- Bugari su uključeni u takvo okupljanje južnoslavenskih naroda. Ako se govori o nekoj ideji, ona mora biti ostvarena ili ne. Očito da ni jedna točka Strossmayerove ideje nije ostvarena, pa je očito da hrvatski Jugoslaveni nemaju nikakvo uporište u opravdavanju svog sluganstva velikosrpskoj ideji.

    Recimo, odmah nakon pojave Okružnice iz 1881. godine o sv. Ćirilu i Metodu, gdje je elaboriran njegov poziv pravoslavnim Slavenima da priđu Rimu, Strossmayer je doživio velike napade iz Srpske pravoslavne crkve, pa je bio i "duhom nečistim zaveden". O samoj ideji o uniji Ivo Pilar (Južnoslavensko pitanje i Svjetski rat, Hrvatska demokratska stranka, Varaždin 1990, str. 336-340) kaže: "Namisao bijaše upravo veličanstvena, ali već unaprijed osuđena na neuspjeh; morala je doživjeti istu sudbinu, koju je doživjela papinska politika i koju će uvijek morati doživjeti." Naravno, takve ideje i mogu ostvariti samo tako veliki ljudi kakav je i bio biskup Strossmayer. Upravo zato što je on pokušao i nije uspio dokazuje Pilarovu tvrdnju da je tako nešto unaprijed osuđeno na neuspjeh!

    Zašto je sama ideja po Pilaru bila veličanstvena? Odgovor je opet jednostavan. Strossmayer želi zlo sasjeći u korijenu. A zlo u korijenu velikosrpskog zla je oduvijek bila Svetosavska crkva. To je tako zorno pokazala i uloga SPC u Domovinskom ratu. Za razliku od hrvatskih Jugoslavena koje spominje Borić, i koji se bore za jugoslavenstvo u kome je jasna vladajuća srpska pozicija, Strossmayer je bio svjestan da takvo jugoslavenstvo donosi samo zlo. On je dobro poznavao srpski narod i njegovu mržnju prema katoličanstvu i Hrvatima. To nam zorno pokazuju njegova pisma Račkom.

    Tako 15. prosinca 1861. piše: "Ako drugo, onda sam opazio, da se neke stvari po srpskih ruku sasvijem srpski, ili bolje rekuć turski rješavaju. Ima Srbina u namjesništvu, koji se gledaju i meni i crkvi katoličkoj osvetiti, što se ne ćemo posrbiti."U pismu od 25. lipanja 1883. Strossmayer piše o srpskom "barbarstvu" i "okovima srpskim", a posebno je znakovito pismo od 10. travnja 1884. gdje kaže "Narod nam je u vrlo opasnom položaju. Srbi su nam krvavi neprijatelji. Dobro je rekao - mislim Marković - da dočim se mi ljuto borimo prot Mađara, Srbin brat iza leđa na nas navaljuje." U istom pismu spominje i "grob, kog Srbi nam kopaju".

    U pismu Serafinu Vannutelliju, papinskom nunciju u Beču, od 2. prosinca 1885., biskup Strossmayer ukazuje na velikosrpske težnje za obnavljanje Dušanovog carstva, a spominje i balkansku federaciju: "Mađari već dva i više desetljeća posebno nastoje da srpski narod u Hrvatskoj i izvan Hrvatske za svoje ciljeve pridobiju i učine ih svojim nakanama posve odanim. Iskorištavaju u tu svrhu taštinu Srba koji smatraju da su ispred svih drugih pozvani da, uskrisivši carstvo svoga cara Dušana, jedini na Balkanskom poluotoku zavladaju. To je anakronizam i opsjena bolesnog uma iz četrnaestog stoljeća kad je Dušan, kralj svakako vrlo sposoban no isto tako vrlo podmukao i okrutan, živio (…) Ponavljam: tu misao ponovno oživljeti isto je što i trabunjati prepuštajući se pukim opsjenama ali, nažalost, narodi zahvaćeni nadutošću i sebičnošću ravnaju se radije snovima i opsjenama negoli istinom i pravdom koje traže žrtve i požrtvovnost.Mađarskim probicima i nakanama odgovara da nadraže slavenski narod protiv slavenskog naroda te da Srbe nagovore da, s jedne strane, Hrvatska bude opljačkana i bačena u ropstvo; da se s druge strane, Bugari satru i učine nepomičnima, pa da oni uglavnom jedini vladaju i negdašnje Dušanovo carstvo obnove. (…) Ja sam dabome najčvršće uvjeren da je na Balkanskom poluotoku jedino moguće, a po Bogu i moralnom zakonu valjano, imati bratsku federaciju raznih naroda, među kojim će narodima dakako Slaveni igrati glavnu ulogu, dokle se za to svojom vjerom, krepostima i žrtvama, jednako tako ljubavlju i međusobnom slogom, budu znali svoga božanskog određenja dostojno pokazati. (…) Ponavljam iz svega svog srca: Hrvatska, kakva je vazda bila i kakva će vazda ostati, pravi je Božji dar uzvišenoj vladarskoj kući i svemu carstvu da na Balkanskom poluotoku obdrži prvo mjesto, pobjedivši i sebi prije svega podloživši srca i savjesti naroda pošto zauzme i podvrgne sama njihova područja i zemaljske granice. No, zaista je istina, da bi tome uzvišenom cilju Hrvatska mogla odgovoriti, treba prije svega da se na slobodu izvuče ispod stranog odlučivanja, tiranije i vlasti, te da se sebi samoj, to jest svojoj cjelovitosti, slobodi i snazi vrati. (…)Meni se čini da je skrajni čas da se jadnoj Hrvatskoj pomogne. Ako se ne varam, kao što je godine 1848. i 1849. početak spasa krenuo od Hrvatske, tako i danas mogu, kako se čini, počeci njena popravka i njezine snage biti ono, čega se Austrijsko Carstvo iz dana u dan sve većma trebati da svoju moćnu jakost i djelotvornost posvuda iskaže.
    U tom pogledu pitanje Hrvatske pod nipošto nije, kako tvrde Mađari, samo nutarnje pitanje Ugarske, nego je pitanje cijeloga Carstva i uzvišene dinastije.”

    Zgodno je Strossmayerovu zalaganju da Zagreb, a ne Beograd, bude centar južnih Slavena dati dio iz pisma Vannutelliju od 19. travnja 1887. gdje biskup kaže da je "Biograd, nekako Carigrad u malome, grad vrlo važan, središte gotovo nedvojbeno i od Boga samoga preodređeno da na Balkanskom poluotoku izvrši veliki utjecaj. Iz Biograda rijekom Savom lagan je pristup Zagrebu koji je također grad vrlo važan i dostojan pažnje, koji premda nije tolike važnosti za trgovačku i gotovo svjetsku politiku kao Biograd, ipak je nedvojbeno predodređen za atenej južnih Slavena, o čemu već sada ima jasnih naznakah. Ja i moji prijatelji htjeli smo na svaki način prvenstvo sačuvati Zagrebu, tim prije što je on središte katoličanstva, pa dakle iz zapadne kršćanske kulture. No, nažalost, onima koji su tu namjeru trebali objeručke prigrliti ponestalo je pravog razumijevanja i snage da na tome najodlučnije porade te sve zapreke, koje su se pojavile, nadvladaju."

    Ali posebno su znakoviti događaji u svezi sa Zavodom sv. Jeronima u Rimu iz 1901.-1902. - veoma značajni događaji u hrvatskoj povijesti o kojima se, nažalost, u Hrvatskoj i među povjesnicima malo zna, a trebali bi biti uključeni u sve školske udžbenike povijesti. Naime, 1901. godine papa Lav XIII dao je Zavodu hrvatsko ime. To je uzbudilo diplomatske krugove diljem Europe. Usprotivile su se Italija, Francuska, Austrija, Mađarska, Rusija, Srbija i Crna Gora, pa se išlo i do izravnih ucjenjivanja Svete Stolice.

    Odlučujuću ulogu tada je odigrala Crna Gora. Naime, na Berlinskom kongresu 1878. Crna Gora je dobila Bar, pa je knjaz Nikola proglasio tamošnje katolike (Hrvate) Srbima (tzv. Srbi-katolici), i tražio da se Zavodu sv. Jeronima uz hrvatsko doda i srpsko ime! Tim povodom biskup Strossmayer piše kardinalu Rampolli: "U srcu i duši Srba vlada nesnošljivost prema katoličkim Hrvatima. Stoga se naš zavod ilirski ili hrvatski u Gradu ne smije nikako nazvati srpskim. Taj se pojam apsolutno ne smije upotrebiti".

    Papa je 1902. vratio Zavodu ilirsko ime, a hrvatsko on dobiva tek 1971.

    Kolika se nepravda čini Strossmayeru izjednačavajući njegovo jugoslavenstvo s hrvatskim Jugoslavenima iz vremena postojanja Jugoslavije najbolje pokazuje usporedba s jednim drugim velikim hrvatskim političarem iz dvadesetog stoljeća – s Mačekom. Naime, Maček je naslijedio Stjepana Radića, koji je umro od posljedica ranjavanja u beogradskoj Skupštini, preživio je Drugi svjetski rat, pa sigurno zna za četničke zločine tijekom tog rata, ali i za stotine tisuća ubijenih Hrvata poslije rata. Pa ipak je umro vjerujući da Hrvatska treba biti u Jugoslaviji, državi koja nije bila, niti može biti ništa drugo nego Velika Srbija. A i prva i druga Jugoslavija nastale su na zločinima nad hrvatskim narodom!

    Slično stajalište ima i njegova stranka danas. Sjetimo se da su na posljednim izborima na kojima je pobijedio HDZ išli s parolom: "Stvorili smo Banovinu bez kapi prolivene krvi." Dakle: "S nama bi imali bolju Hrvatsku u Jugoslaviji bez kapi prolivene krvi." To i nije ništa drugo nego Mačekova vizija Hrvatske u Jugoslaviji.

    Kako izgleda Strossmayerovo apsolutno ne u usporedbi s politikom HSS-a. Zar sama činjenica da papa Lav XIII. tada nije uspio jednom svom Zavodu dati ime koje je htio jer je to ime bilo hrvatsko ime, ne opravdava Strossmayerovu pragmatičnu politiku u njegovoj borbi za slododu hrvatskog naroda?

    To Strossmayerovo apsolutno ne je značilo apsolutno ne bilo kakvom savezu sa Srbima. A ono njegovo "Rado bi doživio oslobođenje svoga naroda" zorno pokazuje gdje bi se on svrstao da je živio u vremenu kada je nada za slobodom postala realnost! To njegovo apsolutno ne vrijedi i danas. To je apsolutno ne carinskim unijama, tj. balkanijama, jugoslavijama, svemu sličnom što nam pripremaju bjelosvjetski sponzori velike Srbije.

    Josip Pečarić

    Slobodna Dalmacija, 4. veljače 2001.
  7. Željko Zidarić avatar
    JURE PETRIČEVIĆ: The Significance of Stjepan Radić to the Croatian Nation in the Past and Present

    This essay first appeared in the book "Hrvatski Portreti" – (Croatian Portraits) published by Hrvatska Revija in Switzerland (Book Eleven - Munich - Barcelona, 1973, edited by Lucijan Kordic and Jure Petricevic; translation - Vicko Rendic and Jacques Perret).

    The book "Hrvatski Portreti" is now available on this website.


    by Jure Petricevic

    Stjepan Radic is an eminently great phenomenon in Croatian history; a politician who laid new foundations and went his own way; an organizer of the peasantry and of the whole Croatian nation such as had not appeared in Croatia until then; a great orator and writer; a fearless combatant for humanity, peace and social justice; an advocate of new ideas for the foundation of Croatian state and society. A leader around whom the whole nation gathered, he was rightly called the leader and teacher of the Croatian nation. A martyr who fell under the enemy’s bullet, he gave his life for his humanitarian and patriotic ideals. He dedicated himself to advocating the cause of the peasant party.

    Croats are celebrating the centenary of the birth of Stjepan Radic. Unfortunately the Croatian nation at home cannot freely celebrate this their great son. But Croats all around the world, some openly, some in silence, in their hearts defer to the spirit and ideals of this great Croatian champion. Croats will remember that the coup against Radic was the prelude to the immeasurable sufferings and misfortune of their fatherland which followed and which they beheld. With that in mind they will discover that, in spite of the contempt for human rights for which Radic fought all his life, Croats are determined and unyielding in the fight for those rights and freedoms.

    And we celebrate abroad the life and deeds of Stjepan Radic. We are more closely interested in his ideas, his programs, his work and struggle, his successes and failures, his political legacy and significance for the Croatian people today. At first let us quickly glance over his life. Some of the more salient facts of Radic’s life will facilitate our understanding of his teachings and deeds.


    Stjepan Radic was born on May 11th, 1871 of poor peasant parents in the village of Trebarjevo Desno, not far from Sisak. His brother Ante was exactly three years older, being born on May 11th, 1868. Dr. Ante Radic in the main laid the ideological foundations of the Croatian peasant party while Stjepan developed and diffused them among the people.

    Stjepan Radic already as a boy decided never to enter any service, but to dedicate himself to politics, teaching and defending his people. He traveled throughout Croatia as a high-school boy. Because of a demonstration against the Hungarian ban Khuen-Hedervary in Zagreb in 1888, he was jailed and expelled from high school. Later on as a student at the University of Zagreb he was sentenced to four-months’solitary confinement in Sisak and dismissed from the university because of a statement he had made against the same ban. He left university to study in Prague. Later on he travelled to Russia. Radic was expelled fro the University of Prague in 1894. He was enrolled at the outset of 1895 in the University of Budapest, but after burning the Hungarian flag on the occasion of Franz-Joseph’s visit to Zagreb in the fall of 1895, he was expelled from there and banished from all kingdoms and countries represented at the Imperial Council in Vienna.

    After getting out of jail Radic travelled to Russia. From Moscow he went to Paris in 1897 where he enrolled at the Free School of Political Science. He graduated in 1899 cum laude and his dissertation under the title "Contemporary Croatia and the Southern Slavs" was particularly excellent. After his return to Prague and then to Zemun Radic came to the fore as a politician with a superior education. He was jailed again in 1901 and suffered further. Finally he came to Zagreb where he became the secretary of the coalition of opposition parties in Croatia.

    For a long time Radic had prepared for the establishment of the Croatian peasant party founded at the end of 1904. He presided over it from its very inception. He then issued the program of the Croatian peasant party, the first modern social program in Croatia. With his brother Ante he began in 1905 to publish the party organ "Dom"(Home) through which they both politically educated and instructed the Croatian peasantry.

    Radic with his party made scarcely any headway in the elections because of the restrictions placed on the right of peasants to vote. With an insufficient number of votes, the Croatian peasant party received no seats in the elections of 1906. In 1908 it received two seats and Radic made his debut at its representative in the Croatian parliament where he fought for the rights of the Croatian peasantry and for the defense of Croatian statehood in the face of war and Hungarian violence up to the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy in 1918.

    In 1911 Radic founded the Slavic Bookstore in Zagreb with his wife Marija as a source of financial security for him and his family so that he could live independently. Radic delivered a speech at the momentous session of the Croatian parliament on October 29th, 1918 in which it was resolved than any political union with Hungary must be dissolved and that Croatia must become independent. Next day the parliament transferred its authority to the National Council of the countries of Croatia, Dalmatia, Slavonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Backa and Baranja. In a historical speech during the evening session fo the central committee of the National Council on November 28th, 1918, Radic contested the decision on the unification with Serbia and on the dissolution of the Croatian state. He denied the central committee the right to make such a resolution. Even the National Council as a body was not empowered by the nation to reach such a conclusion. He defended the millennium and statehood, advocating an alliance for a federative republic of the South Slavs, including the Bulgarians.

    Later Radic with his party, which received 50 seats in the elections of 1920 and 70 seats in 1923, did not recognize the unification with Serbia nor the Serbian dynasty and its authority in Croatia. Together with the republican majority delegates from the banate of Croatia he sent a message on February 11th, 1921 to the Serbian regent Alexander denying him the right to rule in Croatia and indicting the Belgrade government for lawlessness and violence. Radic and the Croatian people’s delegation boycotted the Belgrade constitutional parliament that had adopted on June 28th, 1921 the constitution of St. Vitus’s day without Croatia’s representation. Under Radic’s leadership the Croatian republican majority delegation approved on April 1st, 1921 the Croatian constitution under the title "Constitution of the Neutral Peasant Republic of Croatia" which was declared on June 26th, 1921, two days before the St. Vitus’ day constitution. Radic was the author of a memorandum to the Croatian national delegation on August 13th, 1922 stressing the declaration of an independent federative republic of Croatia including Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slavonia, Banat, Backa and Baranja. He had sent it to the League of Nations on October 29th, 1918. In it he protested the occupation of the federation by Serbia and begged the Council of the League of Nations to recognize the political and national identity of Croatia and to advise the Serbian government to recognize the political identity of Croatia and accordingly to proceed to reach an agreement with Croatia.

    In 1923 Radic visited Paris, London and Moscow in order to seek aid against Serbian occupation and oppression. That mission being a failure, he returned to Zagreb in August 1924. When Pasic and Pribicevic returned once again to power, Radic’s position was precarious. Instead of going abroad again he remained in Zagreb, but incognito, in order to campaign for the elections. The government declared the so-called Law for the Defense of the State on January 1st, 1925, which was directed against the Croatian peasant party. In the elections of February 1925 Radic’s party gained its greatest victory to date, registering over half a million votes but because of the gerrymandering of electoral districts it lost three seats (from 70 to 67).

    Radic’s clandestine status was untenable and he was found out. He was arrested and menaced with a long prison term and the interruption of his work. He then did a complete about-face, changing his tactics from top to bottom, but not his goal. He recognized the constitution and the Karageorgevic dynasty in order to lead the fight against violence, oppression and injustice legitimately and in collaboration with Pribicevic and the Serbian opposition. He and his colleagues participated in government. He attempted to gain a majority in parliament, to affect the reform of the state and to restore the regime to its position in 1918 prior to the unification with Serbia. But the Serbian ruling class with the court taking the initiative organized and brought about an assassination attempt on Radic in the Belgrade parliament on June 20th, 1928. Radic was critically wounded. His nephew Palve Radic and Dr. Juro Basaricek were killed. Two other delegates were critically wounded, Ivan Grandja and Dr. Ivan Pernar. Radic died of his wounds in Zagreb on August 8th, 1928.

    Dr. Vladko Macek was elected as his successor. Not even five months after Radic’s death king Alexander introduced a dictorship on January 6th, 1929. (1)


    1. Peasant Reformation

    The French Revolution destroyed the feudal system and proclaimed the political equality of all citizens. After the American Revolution, the French Revolution signified the turning point in the humanization of mankind. The ideas of the French Revolution and of American liberty took hold of Europe and opened up an era of democratic regimes. But in practice the 19th century ushered in the bourgeois regime that in the era of industrialization did not mean social justice. Thus the labour movement appeared with Marxism at it head. Taking the form of communism it precipitated the Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917, prescribing government by the workers and peasantry but eventually resulting in a dictatorship of an elite party minority lasting to the present day.

    In Western Europe the labour movement and with its Marxism subsided. It evolved from a manifesto for the dictatorship of the proletariat to the socialist movement, which accepted democratic principles and acknowledged accordingly similar political rights to its political adversaries. The socialist parties of Western Europe realized and achieved social justice and the rights of the workingman without revolution and within the framework of peace and development. Today in most free European states they participate in government.

    In Croatia, under the influence of the ideas inherent in the French revolution of 1848, serfdom was abolished, but still the peasants remained socially and politically disadvantaged. Only a small number of peasants had the right to vote. As a class it was economically exploited. The main cause of the condition Radic perceived in the educated gentry, in the alien spirit fostered in the schools of the landed upper class and in the unenlightened peasantry.

    Radic here operated a major revolution. He was seeking all political rights and equality as well as social justice for the peasants. Through his movement and the Croatian peasant party he converted the Croatian peasantry into a political force of the first importance and the main political force in Croatia. Although the peasantry constituted the great majority of the people, only through Radic did it become the political nucleus and basis of the nation. Radic was seeking similar political and social rights for the workers. He aimed at the creation of a Croatian peasant republic in order to realize political and social justice. In that republic the peasant majority would rule democratically.

    As head of the Croatian national delegation after 1918, Radic rallied around himself, through the Croatian peasant party, not only the Croatian peasantry, but also a large part of the intelligentsia and almost all the middle class. Radic thus created a general national movement through the Croatian peasant movement. After the cultural and national revival called Illyrism and the political resurgence proclaimed by Starcevic, Radic forged a new national-social resurgence in Croatia. Today Croats are experiencing a fourth national revival in the struggle for cultural and national identity, economic independence and Croatian statehood.

    2. Defender of Fundamental Human Rights

    Stjepan Radic was a most determined and consequential defender of fundamental human rights. Imbred with a feeling for his rights and freedom for his peasant background, he was also influenced by the ideas of the French Revolution and later by the fourteen-point program of the American president Wilson at the end of World War I. He was the first in Croatia to draw up the political document containing all fundamental human and democratic rights. This is the constitution of the Neutral Peasant Republic of Croatia proclaimed on June 26th, 1921. Here Radic laid down as the foundation of Croatian society a republic based on self-determination of the people, the inviolability of the individual, freedom of movement, the sanctity of the home, security from the censorship of mail and equality of the sexes. Furthermore in the constitution freedom of assembly, of the press and of association is guaranteed. The people are the supreme sovereign.

    Such freedom has been realized in the United States of America, France, England, Switzerland and other Western nations. But those freedoms are non-existant in Croatia or exist only in part, when even today they have not yet materialized. In the contemporary world more and more states are being organized along these foundations. In 1948 the United Nations General Assembly provisionally adopted the universal Declaration of Human Rights in accordance with which all states ought to be organized. (2) The fundamental rights and liberties of Radic’s constitution are of lasting value and could be built into the constitution of contemporary Croatia.

    3. Champion of the Croatian State and National Identity

    In the struggle against Hungarian authority in Croatia, Radic always took the stand that the erstwhile Croatia was a separate state under the agreement reached between Hungary and Croatia. He never acknowledged it as a foundation of Croatian politics but only as a weapon in the fight against Hungary in order to preserve old rights. He defined the erstwhile sovereignty of Croatia in the following terms: "Croatia is a state under the agreement or compromise of 1868 whereby it has its own boundaries and its own government which in its principal affairs ought not to be subjected to anyone in this world, save to its own people, that is, a government responsible only to the people (The people appoint the delegates in parliament and the government is accountable to parliament for everything)"(3)

    And then Radic stressed: "And if we remember particularly that the glory and authority of the banate of Croatia are over 1000 years old and that the agreement was reached in 1868 then we will easily understand that the glory and authority of the banate of Croatia are the foundation of the Croatian state, namely that in its constitution lie the rights of the Croatian state. This means that in Croatia neither Hungarian nor German nor Italian nor any other foreigner commands or governs."

    Radic took this same stand even later vis-ŕ-vis the Serbian authority in Croatia. In the Recommendation of the republican majority delegation of the banate of Croatia, headed by Radic, to the Serbian regent Alexander on February 11th, 1921, he stated the following: "It is our duty and our primary irrevocable right that in the name of the Croatian nation and state we proclaim irrevocably null and void the formal petition submitted on December 1st, 1918, to Your Majesty by the 28 members of the interim session of the National Council, only eight of which were members of the Croatian parliament. It was a violation of the letter and spirit of the statue enacted by the Croatian parliament on October 29th, 1918. It was against the express will of the Croatian people corroborated by 157,669 signatures in the petition submitted at the end of April 1919 to the Peace Council in Paris and to the President Wilson himself. The Croatian parliament proclaimed on October 28th, 1918 that Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia, together with Rijeka and Medjimurje, was a quite independent state and delegated to the National Council alone supreme power but without the right to delegate that power. At the same time it resolved to join solely a common but not at all united state of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs in which the constituent assembly would quite freely determine the form of government, one in which we Croats would never be outvoted in parliament". (4)

    The Recommendation stressed in this way that the proclamation of the monarchy was null and void on the territory of the new Croatian state as proclaimed on October 29th, 1918. "The Serbian monarchy was proclaimed solely by Your Royal Majesty over the entire aforesaid territory merely on the basis of the aforesaid petition of the National Council on December 1st, 1918 which already then was de jure and de facto null and void. The Croatian people in its plebiscite of November 28th, 1920 proclaimed it specifically null and void, such that mere armed force alone contrary to the will and express right of the Croatian people could never maintain in Croatia the terror unparalleled and at the price of innumerable und uninterrupted acts of violence and lawlessness."(4)

    Radic’s idea for a Croatian state comes particularly to the fore in the memorandum of the Croatian national delegation on August 13th, 1922, to the League of Nations in Geneva. It states: "Croatia is, then, entering a new post-war era as a sovereign state and a parliamentary republic. Around this independent Croatia (to which already belongs Medjimurje, the territory between the Drava and the Mura, a wholly Croatian region which up to this date belonged to Hungary) one federative state of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs has formed and undited: Bosnia and Herzegovina with their national government at Sarajevo; Slovenia with its national government at Ljubljana; and finally Banat, Backa and Baranja under the government of the National Council in Novi Sad."(5)

    Radic then advocated the idea of a confederation of South Slavs in which each member state would keep its identity. Out of his declarations, programs and papers it becomes clear that, unless Croatia became a member state of such a commonwealth with the full assent of the Croatian people, Radic rejected every other solution and advocated a quite autonomous Croatian state.

    Because of his defense of the Croatian nation’s sovereignty and his advocating of Croatian statehood in pre-war monarchical Yugoslavia the Serbian oligarchy suborned a certain Punisa Racic to assassinate him. Radic ended his life as a defender of Croatia’s national independence.

    Radic, like a great number of the Croatian intelligentsia, in his youth advocated the idea of a national unity of South Slavs, including Bulgarians. But he deliberately devoted himself to preserve the cause of Croatia’s national identity. He argued for the brotherhood of all Slavs in order to create a fraternal Slavic unity under the patronage of "big brother" Russia that would present a great power. Yet later on he revised his position with respect to national unity, although not even before had he advocated Yugoslavism in terms of integral national unity. Concerning this the Croatian republican majority delegation unequivocally declared the following, in the seventh session held on June 26th, 1921 in Zagreb where the constitution of the neutral peasant republic of Croatia was proclaimed: "Croats are in all points of view especially from the political viewpoint a separate nation. No Croatian political party or group had ever had or could have in its program the dissolution of the Croatian nation or the amalgamation of the Croatian nation with another or with a new nation. Therefore, Croats, as a separate nation, seek and reserve for themselves the absolute and unlimited right of self-determination."(6)

    As Croats are a separate nation, so they on the basis of the right of self-determination decide themselves about their fate. They alone have the right to proclaim an independent Croatian state and to enter into alliances and leagues with other states without ever renouncing their sovereignty. Such is the meaning of Radic’s program and struggle for a Croatian republic. Radic’s republic is peaceful and neutral such as is even today the actual situation in Croatia. Of course today in the atomic era of the industrial civilization a peasant society cannot be realized. It is not possible fro the reason that among us the agricultural population has fallen below half of the total number of the population. In Croatia one has to count on a much greater decline in the peasant population approaching the level of that in Western Europe where the agricultural population stands mostly at 5% to 15%. The social structure of the population today is essentially different for Radic’s time and accordingly the peasantry can no longer represent the decisive factor in politics. But Radic’s has shown with his fundamental idea of a neutral and pacific Croatian republic that he was contemporary, far seeing and devoted to the peasants’ rights. He was a modern pioneer of social justice in Croatia.

    4. Radic introduces action and dynamic in Croatian political life

    In view of Radic’s political methodology he is a new phenomenon in Croatian pulbic life. Until the appearance of Radic, political life – ideas, programs, organizations, actions – in the main concerned the narrow stratum of the bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia. The public, workers, peasants and small artisans played no role in the political life. And in addition to this, politics was predominately limited to basic "statement of faith", learned articles in newspapers with a narrow circulation. In the main politics was a static affair, for the most part inert and unreceptive of the new circumstances and new life. In reaction, Radic criticized this bourgeois and futile approach to politics and introduces a vigorous activity and dynamic in Croatian political life. His public life was marked by an uninterrupted sequence of actions full of surprises and vicissitudes. Never letting out of his sight his financial goal, Radic was an extraordinary tactician knowing how to utilize every new opportunity by masking often his true intentions.

    Radic was a great orator. Before him no one in Croatia as an orator attracted such a huge number of people. More than 10,000 people would come times to hear him speak, often coming from quite far away. Radic was very talented in popularizing his political views but was also the author of many solidly scientific treatises. He had very weak eyesight, approaching blindness. To compensate for this he developed an extraordinary memory thanks to his powerful intellect. The far-sightedness of his spirit was exceptional.

    5. Radic – leader of the people

    From Radic’s successes in the elections it became clear that he was the leader of the Croatian nation. His success was unusual. In the elections of 1920 he received 231,000 votes and 50 seats; in 1923 474,000 votes and 70 seats; in 1925 he reached a peak with 533,000 votes, but only 67 seats because of the Serbian government’s practice of gerrymandering the electoral districts. In the elections of 1927, because he acknowledged the Kavageorgevic dynasty and departed for Belgrade, Radic received far fewer votes (368,000) but 61 seats. The assassination attempt against Radic and his death in 1928 reunited the whole Croatian nation on the principles, which he had formulated.

    Radic’s successor Dr. Vladko Macek became, like Radic, the president of the Croatian peasant party and in fact the leader of the Croatian nation. The great qualities of Radic and the development of circumstances placed him far above his close associates. The whole cause, success and failure of the party were invested in his person. His successor Dr. Vladko Macek automatically acquired the position that Radic had. After the death of Radic, the Croats followed Dr. Macek and the Croatian peasant party as one front in the elections of 1935 and 1938, although not all Croatian voters were members of the Croatian peasant party. On account of the legal decrees in force at that time this party could not enter the elections independently, but only as a part of the opposition coalition on behalf of which Dr. Macek entered the electoral lists as leader of the untied opposition. In the first Jeftic elections of 1935 the Croatian peasant party received about 600,000 votes (of a total of 1,076,000) and 44 seats; in 1938 in the Stojadinovic elections 801,000 votes (of the total 1,365,000) and 44 seats. (7)

    At that time the genuine Croatian national front was reinstated. It had great political force and weight. But that strength soon ebbed away without much result. At the outset of the war the front disintegrated into several opposing camps and certain factors came to the fore that together with unfavourable external precipitated the Croatian nation into disaster.


    Radic had united the whole Croatian nation in the struggle to achieve national freedom and social justice, unchaining tremendous forces. Notwithstanding, the Croatian nation had not been liberated these 40 past years, but rather came yet further under foreign yoke until today its existence is actually threatened. External circumstances in any case have aggravated the situation but the main reasons for Croatia’s failures, particularly in the Second World War and after, one should look for within itself, in its political leadership. The external circumstances sometimes, undoubtedly, were favourable to Croatia’s endeavours.

    Why did the great deeds of Radic not suffice to free Croatia? This question we ask once more today on the occasion of every commemoration of Radic. We must seek the answers and reach some conclusion for the future. At first let us put the question thus: what has happened with Radic’s legacy? But concerning the destiny of the Croatian people, Radic followers were not alone to decide, but in great measure the ustace and the Croatian communists.

    1. Radic’s legacy, Macek’s politics

    Dr. Vladko Macek assumed the leadership of the Croatian peasant party and indeed of the whole of Croatian politics after Radic’s death. Because of the royal dictatorship and of his imprisonment, his activity was curtailed and his goals could not be clearly expressed. But later on the direction and aims of Macek’s politics gradually developed. Croatian public opinion at that time began to insist with the greater determination on secession from Belgrade and on the creation of a Croatian state.

    Macek precisely with regard to the crucial question was unclear, obscure and indecisive. By an agreement with the Serbian politician Cvetkovic in 1939, Macek, with the help of the erstwhile regent Prince Paul, achieved certain autonomy for Croatia and indeed affirmed its position. By regarding the territorial boundaries or autonomy it did not represent a final solution to the Croatian question, namely by gaining further concessions and perhaps by some lesser territorial modifications. He embraced the idea of unification with Serbia and of a solution to the Croatian question within the framework of Yugoslavia. He neither advocated nor saw any other solution. This is evident from his attitude during the war when he took the direction of the Croatian peasant party, although his persecution and incarceration at the hands of the Pavelic regime curtailed his activities. From Macek’s memoirs one can also perceive his pro-Yugoslavian orientation. (8)

    The Croatian peasant party under Macek’s leadership committed a fatal error when it joined the Yugoslavian government in exile during the war and especially when its leading members Subasic and Suteja joined Tito’s government at the end of the war. With the act the Croatian question was attenuated at the level of international politics and reduced to the internal question of Yugoslavia. The Western Allies requested this and Macek could readily comply with that request since he himself advocated a Yugoslavian solution to the Croatian question.

    The politics of Macek and the Croatian peasant party facilitated Pavelic’s accession to power and gained him many more followers in Croatia then he had enjoyed before. Pavelic, with his ustace movement, formed the only prevailing political party advocating the idea of a Croatian state.

    The Croatian peasant party in the spirit of Macek’s politics of participation in the Yugoslavian government abroad ceased to lead its own active political life. A great number of delegates in the party did not accept its politics and went of to Pavelic to collaborated with the so-called independent state of Croatia (N.D.H.). Only a small number later on went over to Tito. The most powerful political party before the war, during that difficult and fateful epoch of the war it no longer exercised an active role. The party renounced its role and submitted to external influences. The most powerful Croatian political party passed on during that fateful epoch into a state of lethargy. Indeed that inactivity and indecisiveness did not come suddenly. It was the chief trait of Macek’s politics in general and the reason for which already in the 1930s the Croatian peasant party and its membership declined. It was a great contrast with Radic’s activity and dynamism.

    Macek’s Yugoslavism, his submission to the will of a foreign power and his passivity are important reasons why the great historical legacy of Radic did not benefit the Croats to a marked degree.

    After the war Dr. Juraj Krnjevic effected a decisive reappraisal in the Croatian peasant party with respect to its attitude toward the solution of the Croatian question. In contrast to Macek, he declared himself consistently and decisively against Yugoslavian solution to the Croatian question and in favour of a Croatian state. With his advent at the head of the Croatian peasant party after Macek’s death, the former pro-Yugoslavian policy was abandoned. In connection with this Dr. Krnjevic as president of the Croatian peasant party declared at the Congress of the Croatian peasant organization held in Toronto at the end of August 1969: "Let me make it brief…because of all that it was necessary to hold this congress and to state outright that there is no affair that we of the Croatian peasant party and movement would not be equal to, though supposedly once more we cannot go alone, without "union", without following somebody or other, some Peter or Paul…We stand firmly by the principle of a sovereign Croatian state democratically constituted just as the Croatian nation was in 1920 and 1921 under Radic’s leadership, in accordance with Western civilization and what the free world recognizes as useful to Europe and to mankind." (9)

    Although this attitude can no long correct the fatal political errors of the Croatian peasant party and its consequences in the last war, nevertheless it signifies a major advance. Krnjevic demonstrated the error of Yugoslavism in which the Croatian peasant party under Macek’s leadership was fatally mired. If the leadership of the Croatian peasant party 30 years ago had engaged in politics in that frame of mind, the situation of the Croatian nation would be much better today.

    2. Ante Pavelic’s fatal errors and the road to disaster

    Pavelic was the sole leading Croatian politician before the war who advocated the idea of Croatian statehood and fought for its realization. As far as the relation to foreign powers went he repeated the basic errors of Macek. He subjugated Croatian interests to foreign powers and by his politics substantially contributed to Croatia’s defeats and sufferings during the war and after. Soon after the creation of an independent Croatian state with the so-called Rome agreements of May 18th, 1941, Pavelic ceded to Italy a large part of Croatia’s Adriatic littoral, thereby enabling the Italians to participate in the administration of the remaining coastal zone of the Croatian state of his day. With that Pavelic already at the outset dealt the infant state a heavy blow. Indeed, after the capitulation of Italy on August 8th, 1943, Pavelic revoked those shameful treaties, calling Italy "treacherous allies". But later on after the downfall of fascist Italy he again subordinated Croatia’s interests politically and militarily to the Germans in such measure as to find the fate of the Croatian state closely to Hitler’s Germany. Pavelic never looked for any other external political alliance or course of action. Nor did he affect any other solution. He simply involved the Croatian state totally in the German retreat from Croatia and Germany’s capitulation. Neither in domestic nor in external affairs did Pavelic prepare alternate solution. His fatal politics at the end of the war created the impression to the outside world that only a small group of Croats mattered in the Croatian state and not the immense majority of the Croatian people. Pavelic’s dissolution of the state and the army, on the surface of it, did nothing to alter that impression. This act facilitated the mass killing of Croatian soldiers and civilians during the Bleiburg tragedy, not to mention the persecution and execution of Croats in Yugoslavia for many years after the war.

    3. The Croatian Communist commit Croatia’s fate into Serbian hands

    The Croatian communists repeated the fatal and disastrous errors of those Croatian politicians who in 1918 delivered the Croatian nation into the hands of Alexander Karageorgivic, thereby reducing Croatia to a territory and colony under Serbian occupation. The Croatian communists underestimated the unsolved Croatian national question and indeed partially negated its existence. They blindly committed the fate of Croatia into the hands of Alexander Rankovic and his Udba, of the army and of the Yugoslav federation. Even after the fall of Alexander Rankovic the situation of the Croatian nation was not basically modified. While former colonial peoples achieved national liberation, the Croatian communist authority subjugated its own nation to another. Such a policy not only hampered the forthcoming liberation of Croatia but also presented a danger to the very existence of the Croatian nation.

    These three political factors – the politics of the Croatian peasant party under Macek’s leadership, the politics of Pavelic and of the Croatian communists – are the intrinsic reasons for Croatia’s failures after the death of Radic. They are in great measure to be blamed for the difficult position of the Croatian nation today, more so than the external circumstances.


    Stjepan Radic elevated himself by his ideas, his work and merits above all parties and groups, becoming the benefactor of the Croatian nation. He represents the model of the staunch defender of its national identity, sovereignty and statehood. Radic as the first Croatian politician proposed as the supreme goal of Croatian politics the realization of a fundamental humanity and social justice. He pointed out the weak points and errors of Croatian politics and had the energy to see and to correct his earlier mistakes and blunders with regards to Yugoslavism and unity with the Serbs. He combined social and national factors with his pacifism and neutrality and also with his republicanism and combativeness. He drew from the wholesome sources of his country’s past and traditions, introducing the ideas of Western democracy on Croatian soil, indicating a new direction for Croatian politics and giving it a new and lasting configuration. He stands among the greatest sons of Croatia. He united in himself the thoughts and deeds of Gubca, Zrinski, Frankopan, Starcevic and Kvaternik, as their successor.

    Inspired with the ideas, works and sacrifices of Stjepan Radic and learning from the mistakes of Croatian politics after Radic we must build a better future for the Croatian nation.


    They were not made for mundane horizons
    Firmly they looked afar, far to the century’s end.
    Objects and images too near were veiled from them
    Because they too clearly saw the splendour of the Great Spring.
    The wrinkles around them drew a silent smile;
    Rocking in the cradle it lives on long after death.
    Then they looked out over the swelling and turgid sea
    In which his thought was a silvery fish.
    O gentle, dead eyes gouged out by bloody hands
    Too powerful for mortal lot, unattainably remote –
    Now you hover everywhere, over village, plain and people.
    The sea cradles you as the sun and bears you as rivers of pearls.
    Head bowed, a giant stalks little Croatia
    Carrying the gentle dead eyes in his rough palm.

    Ivan Goran Kovacic

    Jure Petričević



    The life and work of S. Radic is reviewed in the book of by Z. Kulundzic Stjepan Radic – Politicki spisi (Political Works), published in Zagreb in 1971 by the publishing firm Znanje; in the book by M. Kovacic, From Radic to Pavelic published by the Knjiznica Hrvatske revije in 1970.
    Universal Declaration of Human Rights. General Assembly of the United Nations, Decemeber 10th, 1948.
    How to improve our lot? According to Z. Kulundzic, op.cit., pp. 162-3.
    Recommendation of the republican majority delegation of the banate of Croatia to the Serbian regent Alexander on February 11th, 1921. S. Kulundzic, op.cit., pp. 347-8.
    Z. Kulundzic, op.cit., p. 403
    Z. Kulundzic, op.cit., p. 361
    Z. Kulundzic, op.cit.,
    Vladko Macek, In the Struggle for Freedom, R. Spellers and Sons, New York, 1957.
    Što je i što hoće Hrvatska seljačka stranka, J. Paukovic, Coventry, England, 1969.
  8. Željko Zidarić avatar
    By Zeljko Zidaric
    25 Mar 2010

    I hear many people in Croatia proclaim themselves to be “anti-fascists” and this confuses me because I don’t know who the “fascists” are today. How can you be “anti-” something that does not exist. Fascism is defined as: a political ideology based on ultra-nationalism, national-rebirth, corporatism along with autocratic leadership and a one-party state. According to Joseph Grčić, fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.[1] By this definition fascism does not exist anywhere in the world today!

    Scholars generally consider Fascism to be on the Far Right in the “Left vs Right” political spectrum. Traditionally, the “Left” includes: anarchists communists, socialists, social liberals, social democrats and progressives while the Right includes: conservatives, reactionaries, monarchists, nationalists and fascists.

    Today the Croatian Right, as with many countries in Europe, is comprised of primarily conservatives and a small minority of nationalists. There are no fascist organizations of any merit in Croatia. Conservatism a political attitude that advocates institutions and traditional practices that have developed organically, thus emphasizing stability and continuity.

    Historically anti-fascism is a phenomenon of the 1920s and 30s. In Italy the Italian Socialist Party(PSI), Italian Communist Party (PCI), the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) and an Anarchist defined themselves anti-fascists. During the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s The Republican army, the International Brigades, the Workers’ Party of Marxist Unification (POUM) and Spanish anarchist militias defined themselves as anti-fascists. In Germany, during the 1920s and 1930s the Communist Party and Social Democratic Party defined themselves as anti-fascists. Looking at this pattern it can be generalized that Socialists, Communists and Anarchists are Anti-Fascists.

    Today some in the Croatian Left define themselves as anti-fascists. If we know that true fascism does not exist then who is being labelled a fascist? In my observations anyone that loves his country, is proud to be a Croatian, respects the Church and traditional values is attacked by anti-fascists. Proud Croatians that want to defend Croatia so that it is not sold off piece by piece to foreign powers receive the worst abuse by the anti-fascists. But wait, to love your country and to be proud, to respect the Church and live by traditional values sounds like the definition of Conservatism! Conservatives are not fascists. While the Left appears to claim a monopoly on anti-fascism I would say that Croatian Conservatives and Nationalists are as much anti-fascist as the Left. Unfortunately Conservatives are being slandered by the Left in a strategy of political misdirection and opportunism.

    Who are these proud anti-fascists? Are they the Croatian Communist Party, renamed the Social Democratic Party (SDP)? Are they the sons and daughters of the old communist (Jugovic) elites that still cling to power in the dark recesses of the government bureaucracy? Are they the old Jugoslavs that are bitter about the birth of Croatia and the demise of their communism and Party priviledge. Are they the invisible puppet-masters of international organizations such as George Soros’ Open Society Institute.

    The Left is being opportunistic today by exploiting the guilt of good Croatians to a dark part of our history which happened 65 years ago. I find it comforting when I realize that if the Left has to resort to ad hominem[2] attacks on good, honest Conservative Croatians rather than use logic and reason to prove the superiority of their political vision then they the anti-fascists do not have a strong foundation on which to build an argument. My fellow Croatian Conservatives be proud to know that communists and anarchists have to stoop so low as to use psychological guilt attacks to weaken your defences and resolve. Stay strong in defending your vision of a Croatia based on traditional and moral conservative values. Stay strong in defending the Homeland of your grandchildren!

    Hmmm, I sit and ponder, could anti-fascists just be anti-Croatia(ns)?

    [1] Grčić, Joseph. Ethics and political theory. Lanham, Maryland, USA: University of America, Inc, 2000. Pp. 120

    [2] An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument toward the person” or “argument against the person”), is an argument which links the validity of a premise to an irrelevant characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.
  9. Željko Zidarić avatar
    Otvoreno Pismo Americkom Veleposlaniku u RH Jame B. Foleyu!

    Pula, 5. ožujka 2012.

    Poštovani gospodine Foley!

    Dozvolite mi da se osvrnem na Vaš javni istup od 1. ožujka 2012. godine kada ste govorili o investicijskoj klimi u Republici Hrvatskoj. U Vašem izlaganju na skupu organiziranom od Investicijskog foruma Vi ste s pravom iznijeli činjenice kako su za zainteresirane američke investitore najveći problemi na koje, među ostalim, nailaze u Hrvatskoj oni administrativne prirode zatim nefleksibilno radno zakonodavstvo, česte promjene uvjeta poslovanja i nestabilnost poslovne klime. Naravno, Vi ovdje nastupate kao diplomatski predstavnik Vaše države, zastupate i artikulirate interese onih pojedinaca, grupa i grupacija koje se žele poslovno aktivirati u Hrvatskoj, a za koje iz njihovog kuta gledanja ovdje kod nas postoje određene smetnje na koje oni ne nailaze u svom poslovanju kod kuće, u SAD-u ili drugim stabilnijim tržišnim gospodarstvima i zemljama sa dužom demokratskom tradicijom. Ne želeći ulaziti preduboko u povijesne analize razloga zbog čega je to tako svejedno ću biti slobodan iznijeti Vam nekoliko, po mojem mišljenju, ključnih momenata koji leže u izravnom kauzalnom odnosu sa stvarnošću kakva je danas u našoj zemlji, a što ste s pravom nazvali, pozivajući se pri tom i na identično mišljenje većine Vaših kolega diplomata u Zagrebu : „Aktivno neprijateljskom ulagačkom klimom!“

    Hrvatska posljednjih dvadesetak godina prolazi jedan specifičan tranzicijski put iz sustava u kojem je institut odgovornosti u gospodarstvu baš kao i u mnogim drugim važnim ali ne (prividno) vitalnim segmentima, bio, najblaže rečeno, deficitaran pojam. Bivša država, odnosno represivni režim koji je u njoj vladao, jedino su na području državne sigurnosti, nadzora ljudi i prostora, funkcionirali na principu odgovornosti za (ne) učinjeno iz razloga jer im je temeljni zadatak bio čuvanje teritorijalnog integriteta države, a on je smatran jedinim, presudno važnim ili vitalnim područjem, u kojem ne smije biti improvizacije i „samoupravljanja“. Dakako i to se postupno urušavalo posljednjih dvadesetak godina postojanja te umjetne tvorevine iz razloga što takav režim nije bio sposoban osigurati koliko toliko održive ekonomske temelje neophodne za stabilnost i opstanak jedne takve konstrukcije. Naglasak na prividno, a ne substancijalno vitalnom zato jer su vanjsko – politički razlozi bili ključni za održavanje tog umjetnog konstrukta, dakle represija je jedino zbog toga imala apsolutni prioritet i dominantnu ulogu, a ne gospodarstvo u kojem je zbog toga vladala improvizacija, kaos, nepotizam, korupcija, voluntarizam i slično. Drugim riječima - onaj tko nije dovodio u pitanje opstanak Jugoslavije mogao je doslovce raditi što god je htio bez ikakvih posljedica za sebe i svoju obitelj. Takvim nenormalnim i neprirodnim odnosima kupovao se društveni mir. U takvim okolnostima i s takvim mentalnim sklopom razmišljanja naša je država dočekala osamostaljenje i s time povezan oslobodilački rat. Pomirba predsjednika Tuđmana bila je kratkoročno dobra i bez alternative, jer u protivnom ne bismo mogli dobiti rat i osloboditi naš teritorij. Dugoročno je međutim pomirba značila cementiranje odnosa snaga u hrvatskom društvu iz bivšeg režima s time što su tadašnje tzv. tehnokratske snage preuzele (zadržale) sve relevantne pozicije u financijskom i gospodarskom sektoru, medijima, a slijedom toga i u politici. One tzv. birokratske (državni aparat i pravosuđe, kao presudno važno) „pomirile“ su se sa tehnokratima (danas kapitalistima) te se stavile njima na raspolaganje i u funkciju zaštite njihovih novostečenih pozicija i interesa. Kako taj sloj nije promjenom sustava promijenio razmišljanje i (neodgovorno) ponašanje njima su ovi (mentalno isti) birokrati dobro došli da im osiguraju i učvrste društvenu poziciju u državi, zapravo apsolutnu moć – monopol odlučivanja u ime nacije. Toj zadaći oni ni po čemu nisu dorasli i zbog toga je u Hrvatskoj tako kako jest pa i u pogledu ulaganja. Oni naime, ne žele nikakvu kvalitetnu konkurenciju koja bi im mogla ugroziti stečene pozicije. Zbog toga je Hrvatska danas atraktivna isključivo za špekulativni kapital i perače novca koji su pod nadzorom, u sprezi i funkciji vladajućih odnosa.

    No, da su „oni“ (vladajući) tamo gdje jesu postoji i nekakva objektivna odgovornost koju moramo podijeliti i sa prijateljskim SAD-om, iako je dominantna, odlučujuća i presudna uloga Velike Britanije i to već gotovo punih 100 godina, jer nisu „oni“ i njihovi predstavnici u politici sam(o) od naroda izabrani.

    Ako pod pojmom pravne države podrazumijevamo predvidivost, sigurnost, pouzdanost, egzaktnost, a upravo je to ono najvažnije što spominjete kao manjkavo u Hrvatskoj za seriozne strane investitore, onda Hrvatska (još uvijek) nije pravna država. Pravna sigurnost jest pravna država. A da ona nije uspostavljena na nužnoj razini ne treba nikoga čuditi kada u pravosuđu dominiraju kadrovi iz bivšeg totalitarnog sustava koji nisu bili neovisni od volje politike i režima tada pa ne mogu biti neovisni ni danas. Kod nas se samo promijenila vanjska forma, a ljudi i njihovi međusobni odnosi ostali su gotovo u potpunosti isti. Nije dovoljno jugo – komunističke suce pozvati u SAD i tamo ih nekoliko mjeseci podučavati o funkcioniranju pravosuđa u demokratski ustrojenim zemljama te ih potom kao „preodgojene“ vratiti natrag na njihova stara radna mjesta. Ne, to nije nikako dostatno. Njima se konačno, nakon više od dvadeset godina građanske demokracije u Hrvatskoj, treba zahvaliti na obavljanju te prevažne dužnosti i poslati ih u mirovinu. Hrvatskoj trebaju mladi neopterećeni djelitelji pravde koji nisu dio represivne mreže starog sustava. Je li normalno da u našoj zemlji još uvijek sude suci koji su rođeni još dalekih 30-tih godina prošlog stoljeća? Pogledajte si samo sastav Vrhovnog suda RH i vidjet ćete kako tamo radi više od 40 – tak sudaca koji su sucima postali još u bivšoj državi!? Samo je jedan postao sucem u posljednjih 20 –tak godina!? To je već stvar principa, bez obzira što je ovaj ili onaj pojedinac možda u redu, sustav nije još uvijek ustrojen kako treba. A Vašu državu, kao i EU to očito ne smeta. Dobro, ako vas (Zapad) ne smeta onda se ne smijete žaliti što kod nas nije zaživjela pravna država. A ona ne može zaživjeti samo segmentarno, onako kako bi vama odgovaralo, u ovom kontekstu o kojemu je ovdje riječ dakle, samo na području pravne sigurnosti investitora izvana. To jednostavno nije moguće jer dok god mi u Hrvatskoj nismo pravno ravnopravni i jednako zaštićeni pred Zakonom, ne mogu slijedom toga biti ni strani investitori. Zar ne?

    Ekonomski, ali i pravni i politički, odnosi ne mogu funkcionirati ako se bilo koji subjektivni faktor nametne iznad objektivnog ljudskog i društvenog ponašanja. U socijalnom tržišnom gospodarstvu objektivna odgovornost predstavlja automatski nadzor tih odnosa zapravo ona je jamstvo njihove uspješnosti. A nepostojanje objektivne odgovornosti i u politici se podudara sa razinom nepostojanja demokracije u odnosnom društvu.

    Da zaključim – sve dotle dok mi ne dostignemo nužnu razinu demokratskih odnosa u društvu, sve dotle dok konsenzusom svih relevantnih političkih snaga ne definiramo nedodirljive nacionalne interese (gospodarski pojas, zemlja, voda, energetika...), sve dotle dok ne zaživi pravna država Vaši će poslovni ljudi imati probleme o kojima s pravom govorite. Isto tako dok god Vi podržavate one snage u hrvatskom društvu koje zapravo imaju zadaću da Hrvatsku odvedu u dužničko ropstvo, obezvrijede sve naše prirodne potencijale i jeftino ih onda iz „nužde“ rasprodaju neće biti moguće udovoljiti željama investitora iz Vaše zemlje da imaju podnošljive uvjete za gospodarenje. Priupitajte se zbog čega u Hrvatskoj ne posluju Hrvati iz višemilijunske dijaspore već samo špekulanti poput Štroka i Končara ? Jedini seriozni investitori koji su uspjeli o(p)stati u ovakvim katastrofalnim uvjetima su Lukšići, milijarderi iz Čilea ali i oni s puno muke i jedino u turizmu. Svi drugi Hrvati iz svijeta su onemogućeni u normalnom investiranju ili opljačkani i iznova otjerani iz vlastite Domovine! Što očekivati u zemlji u kojoj uz medijsko logički postoji i ono (vladajuće) političko jednoumlje!? Što očekivati od „kapitalista“ koji su u većini prijevarom došli do svojeg bogatstva? Što očekivati u zemlji u kojoj se financiraju sa više od milijarde kuna kojekakve udruge koje mrze državu u kojoj djeluju, a koje su još k tome logistički i (dodatno) materijalno potpomagane od svijeta u kojem Vaša zemlja drži primat u politici? Dakle u velikoj mjeri ovisi o politici Vaše zemlje kada će se uvjeti poslovanja, a i svi drugi važni uvjeti za normalan, pravno siguran i dostojanstven život nas koji ovdje živimo, promijeniti!
    Primite izraze mojeg dubokog poštovanja

    Ninoslav Mogorović

    Na znanje:
    Veleposlanicima Mađarske
    SR Njemačke R Austrije
    R Francuske
    Ninoslav Mogorović
Stranica 3 od 3 PrviPrvi 123